I actually added a little more to that line. Was just being a bit creative and jokey as I make a point.
Do you know why I'm a little more relaxed about the downvote thing here? I just see society. This whole thing could pop off at any second, right? Just like life. But it doesn't. Just like life. Yet there are isolated incidents where things go awry. Just like life. And much like life, people focus only on those incidents, leave out the rest, then want to make strange new rules for everyone to follow.
So in this instance you've presented a portion including some superficially sophisticated jury system that clearly solves nothing and breaks itself the first day it goes live. This reminds me of the government.
Why would anyone want that? Just to get Lucy out of a jam? Seems like a little much for one guy...
This wasn't about Lucy. He was simply the most blatant and obvious example that was easy to point out.
Not necessarily. Anything can be what iffed to death. I am not so certain it would break and I did read your back and forth with @logiczombie. I don't see the things you pointed out (mostly almost DDOS style stuff) with regard to it as being something we couldn't plan for. I think it could be modified so that wouldn't be much of an issue. (EDIT: Though I do see the benefit in you pointing it out. Think of as many what ifs as you can, and then see if you can think of solutions. It is easy to shoot things down. Finding solutions can be trickier but that doesn't mean they don't exist.)
As to it bugging people. We already have people actively seeking out posts by people and on subjects they don't like and taking the time to down vote them. Rather than simply ignoring them.
I am not convinced it'd be a problem. Especially if there was potential reward in participation and if it was opt in/out.
Is it guaranteed to work? No. Is it guaranteed to fail? No.
Is it trying something different that would still keep it decentralized and that mostly bypasses the multiple accounts issue that makes any other things I can think of moot? Yes.
Could it fail? Yes.
Can we revert if it does? Yes.
Has it ever been done here before? No.
Would it need to be revised over the simple outline @logiczombie presented? Yes.
That's not a what if and I'm not shooting it down because it's not even up. The door is left wide open to abuse and it's painfully obvious. It's incredibly inefficient. On a large scale it would have to be eliminated. Can you imagine if that was in place while ten million people are here? Legit 'flags' causing 1000 people to say it's legit flowing in nonstop every few minutes? Do you know how long that would take to process by selecting accounts at random until there are 1000 hits? Did anyone figure out the odds of this lottery or was this slapped together on a napkin? Now scale it down where there's only 10000 active accounts. One flag means 10% must drop everything and act? And it's not that it would break. It would bloody well kill itself. After visiting a few posts just to see some nonsense that got downvoted, I'm certain most would get sick of wasting their lives looking at the shittiest work available. How many times are people going to walk into a mess before they get sick of walking into messes? I give it a week. Opting out would be common. Most people don't even use their downvotes. So what makes you think they'd want to be involved? Then you add in the rewards part. So you have people jumping in just to earn rewards, giving no shits about their 'duties'. Then you add in something like obscene images and I'll just add the word illegal to that. That content gets flagged, now this system has become a distributor of illegal obscene images since it's placing it front of a potential market of 1000 people.
Just start from scratch instead of revising it. Throw that one in the garbage.
Yes. It is a what if. You are projecting what WILL happen without bothering to think of solutions. That isn't helpful. Sure it is pessimism and perhaps cynicism yet that doesn't mean it is what will happen. If people operate completely like that without thinking of solutions and trying things we won't do much of anything.
It's not my job to come up with solutions here. That's not my project. I don't feel like building or designing it either.
How about this. I asked logiczombie if they could find a flaw. NO answer. Perfect system.
Dwinblood. Can you find one flaw in this system and present that to me?
You pointed out a flaw. If people flag it then it is going to reach out to however many Jurors the system is set up to reach out to. Depending upon how that notification is received that can be a nuisance. IF they do not respond within a certain time the flag passes.
However, if bots or something are designed to down vote a lot (such as hivewatcher, steemcleaner type stuff) then that could trigger a lot of these things in mass which would suck and could cause problems.
As to solutions to that. Certain accounts could be flagged to be excluded from the process by something similar to how witnesses are elected. You'd want it to be an election process so that it remained something that is decentralized and such accounts could be removed from exclusion if they lose the support of the hive community.
Such accounts could be used without triggering the process.
Yet that wouldn't stop people from writing other bots to do this. You could monitor how long it has been since an account submitted a flag/down vote and have a cool down period.
There are numerous ways things can be approached.
Other potential flaws. If it is randomly selecting jurors sometimes those jurors may be bots or alternate accounts of someone.
That is unavoidable I'd think but I also think the odds of it happening and causing problems are low. It could potentially happen but if it was responded to by a bot unless they took steps to make it seem human (randomize response time) then you could potentially catch and discard some of those.
A lot of these types of problems have been solved in networking. The same principles can be carried over here.
Perfect system? No.
Better system? Definitely possible. Testing would potentially reveal other issues.
There are a lot of flaws. I can think of several more scenarios where it might run into problems. My goal is not to be a pessimistic dickhead, nor will I suggest you're shooting it down for pointing out flaws you see. Best to place all the flaws on the table first before finding solutions or you just end up running back and forth between the fridge and kitchen.
I think people would opt out. To get a good feel for it, take a poll first. However, in order to obtain accurate results, every single possible pro and con imaginable would have to be laid out. Can't just offer them some lopsided viewpoint and point at Mr. Victim over there. Besides, to even get that idea moving you'll need a metric shit-ton worth of support from this community. I can't promote it with all these flaws I see. No chance.
It turns a flag into free advertising. It creates a scenario where someone who's not qualified to make a call, has to make a call. How good are you at spotting art fraud? What if it's a false flag on art fraud. Will you know? So if the majority is wrong, then what? Then what? The system in place now is streamlined and removing these fraudsters is simple. Why add so many layers of complexity?
logiczombie offered a 'solution' with some kind of "form" stating each party writes some kind of description before it's sent out to 1000 people. Overlooked the part about how now the one getting flagged will simply lie (they're always in denial even with evidence provided), or they simply don't write anything and the operation hangs. So that's not going work. Can't just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
I don't believe for one second anyone involved here in support of that idea will even attempt building it. So that's a flaw as well. It's all talk. Prove me wrong.
And if you're willing to risk distributing illegal obscene images, or deny the existence of that risk, or do not understand the consequences of that risk, or just feel like saying it can't happen because happy thoughts; maybe just put the idea to bed. That is by far the biggest flaw. Even if that proposed system placed instances of that foul shit in front of potentially 10 accounts, that is ten too many. Just think about what kind of stuff gets flagged. Rainbows and unicorns?