Why would blind flags be normalizing? It's targeted and punitive. Some of what those accounts upvote or downvote are likely great choices, some are likely not. Blindly following a trial is simply not curation it's a stake war and harmful.
When people stop treating downvotes as their almighty power against those smaller and name calling and being ridiculous when giving them. Those who receive them will become less defensive.
When people stop treating downvotes as their almighty power against those smaller and name calling and being ridiculous when giving them.
Read that again in the context of 'biggest curation accounts'.
What is offered here is a way for nontechies to counter the people taking the most out of the pool.
It is a classic crab bucket move.
Nothing wrong with that, imo.
I hope it persists.
Somehow I doubt the initiative gets much support, though, despite the noble sentiments.
Votes can be adjusted, maybe rather look at how many unique accounts and votes "biggest curation accounts" cast instead of just looking at their size. I know curangel votes on 10x more unique authors than another account of a similar size for instance, doesn't mean people should just blindly auto-downvote them both cause that doesn't change anything. Careful downvote curation could push certain curation accounts to try harder/do better, if they care about the APR that is.
The named accounts do more for the little fish by not voting.
Selling what is going on in the curation gangs as 'helping the little guy' is delusional, imo.
You do understand how the math works, yes?
When whales vote redfish get pushed below the dust cutoff of the long tail.
Negating those rshares serves far more people than allowing them to payout can claim.
Two accounts vs all but two.
Until the coins spread out by a factor of 100, 5000 accounts needed to control rather than 50, we are subject to more than just money attacks.
This also discourages investment.
The age of oligarchies is coming to an end.
Why would blind flags be normalizing? It's targeted and punitive. Some of what those accounts upvote or downvote are likely great choices, some are likely not. Blindly following a trial is simply not curation it's a stake war and harmful.
When people stop treating downvotes as their almighty power against those smaller and name calling and being ridiculous when giving them. Those who receive them will become less defensive.
Not blind, biggest curation accounts.
Lol.
Read that again in the context of 'biggest curation accounts'.
What is offered here is a way for nontechies to counter the people taking the most out of the pool.
It is a classic crab bucket move.
Nothing wrong with that, imo.
I hope it persists.
Somehow I doubt the initiative gets much support, though, despite the noble sentiments.
Votes can be adjusted, maybe rather look at how many unique accounts and votes "biggest curation accounts" cast instead of just looking at their size. I know curangel votes on 10x more unique authors than another account of a similar size for instance, doesn't mean people should just blindly auto-downvote them both cause that doesn't change anything. Careful downvote curation could push certain curation accounts to try harder/do better, if they care about the APR that is.
The named accounts do more for the little fish by not voting.
Selling what is going on in the curation gangs as 'helping the little guy' is delusional, imo.
You do understand how the math works, yes?
When whales vote redfish get pushed below the dust cutoff of the long tail.
Negating those rshares serves far more people than allowing them to payout can claim.
Two accounts vs all but two.
Until the coins spread out by a factor of 100, 5000 accounts needed to control rather than 50, we are subject to more than just money attacks.
This also discourages investment.
The age of oligarchies is coming to an end.
Sounds like you're the one that's delusional.
You were here for the whale experiment, weren't you.
Yes? How is that similar to the voting some of those accounts listed above do these days?
lol, so noble. :)
I agree with the comment below this, if anything we should keep downvotes manual but use them more often to normalize rather than some random trails.