I have been vocal on Discord and in various comments on Hive about my dislike for the current Layer 1 downvote protocol -- which sanctions and enables ‘free stake-weighted downvotes’, ostensibly as a method to police and punish ‘bad actors’.
I understand (to some extent) the historical precedents that led to the current system. I recognize that a very real free-rider problem exists when downvotes are costly and downvotes are being relied upon as the primary weapon to punish and/or disincentivize ‘bad actors’.
In this post, I am not arguing against the current Layer 1 protocol (I might do that sometime in the future, though).
All my commentary herein is directed toward the Proof of Brain tribe.
I have been an active member of the POB tribe since Day 3 of its launch. I have been and remain bullish about the tribe and its token. An exceptional community has arisen; many members of the community are veterans of Hive/Steem who are interested in experimenting with better ways to do ‘proof of brain’. Also, there are a fair number of tribe members who, like myself, are new to Hive and thus bring an ‘outsider’ perspective. Both perspectives are needed if the tribe is to reach new heights while avoiding past missteps.
Personally, I see DVs as toxic, especially within a tribe/community, except for clearly-banned activity that is objectively demonstrable, such as plagiarism.
When it comes to spam, circle-voting, over-rewarding, and other activities that are potentially harmful to the tribe, but involve significant degrees of subjectivity, I gladly offer my time and skills to help develop suitable alternative methods (that either don’t require DVs, or provide safeguards against malicious abuse of DVs).
First Draft of Proposed ‘Rules for Downvoting’
For the sake of the POB tribe, in the near future I will be formally proposing the following (or similar) ‘rules’ governing downvoting:
- Malicious downvoting of any POB post is prohibited.
- First offense will result in a warning.
- Second offense will result in the downvoting account being muted for a period of 10 days.
- Third offense will result in the downvoting account being permanently muted.
- Suspected alt accounts will be muted as well (e.g. accounts with significant delegations or transfers from the muted account); independent account holders receiving legitimate delegations or transfers from the muted account can appeal by providing evidence of independence relative to the muted account.
- ‘Malicious downvoting’ is defined as downvoting any POB post for any reason other than [1] plagiarism or [2] behavior determined to be improper via an approved community-consensus protocol.
- ‘Plagiarism’ includes copy/paste plagiarism, ‘spinning’ (rewording without attribution, e.g. for the purpose of evading plagiarism-detection algorithms), and partial plagiarism.
- Evidence of plagiarism must be linked by the downvoter in a ‘comment’ to the downvoted post.
- Downvoting for improper behavior other than plagiarism shall be governed by a community-consensus protocol (to be developed in the near future).
- de minimus downvoting is permitted, provided it does not result in a cumulative POB reward reduction for a single post or comment exceeding 0.5 POB. Any downvote(s) cast after the 0.5-POB threshold has been reached on a given post or comment will be considered malicious.
- de minimus downvoting can be used for whatever reason, such as a ‘flag’ to alert others to investigate the post, a form of playful banter, a statement of dislike for the post, disagreement with the content, etc.
I am planning to submit a formal proposal of the above (or similar) rules within the next week or so (in accordance with the request for such proposals outlined here by @proofofbraionio, under the heading “Moving Forward”).
Please feel free to provide constructive suggestions. I will consider incorporating helpful suggestions into my upcoming formal proposal.
I do NOT support all this.
As this goes against the basics, against the principals of dPOS, of Hive. Many of them has been listed in one comment, seen not long ago:
P.S.
This comment I self-upvoted for the better visibility. UV will be removed on the 6-th day
@onealfa.pob, I'm cool with you not supporting this; however, was there anything in @trostparadox's proposal that you do agree with or that you think could be morphed into something useful? I see no reason why just because it once was, it must always remain the same. The whole point to proposals is to hopefully continue bettering the system.
I would have found value in your comment if you had expounded on why you feel nothing should change or how all his points were bad, if you feel/felt that way. Instead, you simply posted old guidelines with a major upvote as a bully pulpit? Don't get me wrong...I don't care if you upvote yourself. It's also in the code that you can. I don't care if you take it down on the 6th day...Essentially what I've read from the context in your comment is "I have a bullhorn and a recorder. I've turned it on to say I don't like this, and I'll turn it off before the week is over." Then you put it on loop so all can see/hear your opinion. I find it funny...
ps.
This expresses what I thought, too and I think also how others view it.
This "rules" were copied from another user.
It is an attempt to take out emotions, which of course does not succeed. To use a language and to mark the definitional sovereignty over terms as "set" is, in my opinion, very daring.
Of course, you can go to the Hive FAQs and refer to the set of rules published there. Then you claim that these rules are carved in stone there and that you are "only following them". But you can try to ignore the fact that these rules are not fixed, cannot be fixed at all, but always have room for interpretation, but you will fail, as the debate around this topic nicely shows.
I was most amused when I read that these are only mathematical prefixes. HaHa! Yes, if it were really the case that we just exchange maths exercises and on the other hand behave like Zen masters, then, I'm exaggerating on purpose now, everyone here would just set up an account, switch on some random text generator that produces automatic content, throw the whole thing on their own blog and make a nice life for ourselves, wouldn't they? Then it wouldn't matter what the content was, would it? The Zen master would get a kick out of it, or call him the court jester ;-)
But that's exactly what it seems to be about, showing the cheeky, "only cheap text modules producing bloggers" what a rake is, isn't it? They fight for the rights of the weaker ("true") authors and put on their Robin Hood hats. For the good of the community.
If I get carried away sharing angst about the sacred reward pool being emptied before any of the fish have made it to true subjectively aspired greatness, I am lost, I think. I get lost in the game of those who claim word-definition and presence-supremacy and play it with all the arts of learned propaganda - turning learned terms and intuitive self-evident matters on their heads.
@onealfa, these are great points made to explain the need/use for downvotes, but the fact still remains that even with all the good intentions one might have for downvoting, nothing beats having actual Community rules to guide our downvoting.
The reason why nothing beats it is that apart from plagiarism and what the Community has agreed to call bad behavior all other reasons for downvotes are very subjective, being subjective means it can lead to a lot of disagreement and these disagreements are harmful to the community at large.
So as good as the intentions to downvote can be it is safest to have guidelines to guide it in order to avoid all the quarrels that comes from the subjective nature of other reasons to downvote.
Would you now agree that this is a safer means more protective of the community to go about this?
Am I reading your statement, "I do NOT support all this." correctly? Do you mean you don't support the whole proposal, or that you support only some parts of it?
If you could elaborate on your own viewpoints that would be helpful for the community.
A key aspect of decentralization is the fact that individuals are free to self-assemble and, in so doing, create their own rules for their own communities. I choose to interact in and with a community that reserves downvotes for plagiarism and a few other bad behaviors.
If this community votes to approve a proposal like this, then I will consider it a welcoming place (for me), and if not, vice versa; perhaps you won't consider it a welcoming place for you unless the community rejects such a proposal. That is your right and, either way, you and I will each be free to choose afterwards with respect to our continued involvement.
There is nothing sacred about DPoS. Many members of this community believe DPoS is deeply flawed. Some are concerned that DPoS may ultimately destroy this community. Time will tell.
Last comment for now:
A proposal:
1st time when a user presses the DV button, a window opens:
"Use this feature only for plagiarism and porn related contents, not for any forms of disagreement. We have built in a timer to give you enough space to think through your decision. Therefore, this process will take some of your time. Thank you for your understanding."
The user presses the downvote button again. The inbuilt timer ticks down before the user can proceed (let's say 15 seconds/ up for debate:):
Again a window opens:
"Are you absolutely sure that this is plagiarism or NSWF? If not, check again".
The user presses the button for the third time, another 15 seconds tick down:
"Are you sure you are not using this function because of a difference of opinion? If not, check your motives"
Fourth time - 20 seconds tick down:
"Once you have pressed the DV button, it will now become active. We thank you for considering your decision. In so far as you have not made a consideration and your decision is based on a difference of opinion, you are misusing this function."
I think the solution lays in using the tech for slowing down an emotional response. It's of course, up for debate. But I find it not only funny but also useful. What do you think?
I am happy to have provided a laugh. I laughed myself when I wrote it. I imagined someone wanting to do an emotional downvote and hating the time delay. Cooling down might help. If not, a determined downvoter would probably get away with waiting a minute to cast their vote, for better or worse.
My first question would be whether a community decoupled from Hive would be able to live without the DV button.
Would that be technically possible?
Why not give up on something that once made sense but may no longer have any?
It's like governments, once they have introduced certain laws - because of an emergency, for example - they don't like to remove them very much again.
The idea is to abolish the DV as a feature again and see what happens when you can only upvote. If plagiarism or spam starts to accumulate, the feature could be discontinued if necessary.
Personally, I don't think much of overly fixed and elaborate rules, because they lead to more and more sub-rules in the free space. Those who have dealt with law books or seen catalogues of regulations grow may know what I mean.
The phrase "over-rewarded", for example, is a wolf in sheep's clothing for me. Here a vocabulary dresses itself up in something harmless, but behind the intention that someone has been over-rewarded, there is open space for interpretation that wants to be filled. Minds are inflamed about this and finding a consensus on it seems impossible to me.
A positive anarchy in which people are trusted to deal with situations in a different way - if you are interested in reading something about this, please let me know (there is fantastic material on this!).
I think the blockchain and those who are active here have certain intentions - keyword decentralisation - and also see this as a learning and experimentation field, where one wants to do things differently than in the corporate and government world? Or is this just about upvotes, curation activities and who can skim off the most from the reward pool?
I agree 100%. I am a minimalist when it comes to rules. This particular set of 'rules' is already too much for my liking. However, I am trying to draft something that an overwhelming majority of the community can get behind, and that will encourage growth and expansion of the tribe, rather than hinder it.
I am taking action because I think unfettered DVs can severely damage the community's growth potential. As soon as one person with high stake comes in and starts blasting DVs at every post he/she ideologically disagrees with, things will get ugly in a hurry, and a lot of good folks will leave rather than deal with it.
Again, I agree. Being able to experiment and do things differently is fundamental, imho. That is why I find the argument "free DVs are the only way to discipline and stop bad actors" non-persuasive. Let's explore creative ways to stop 'bad actors' that are less susceptible to abuse.
De minimus is an exception to the rule that any downvoting is malicious downvoting apart from [1] plagiarism or [2] behavior determined to be improper via an approved community-consensus protocol, right? I think this should be made more clear maybe added as number [3] to the list of things that don't constitute malicious downvoting.
The Community-consensus protocol that would determine bad behavior outside plagiarism, I'd say it should be part of your proposal, which means you should suggest how this consensus should be reached.
My own suggestion on how it should be reached is: let's follow this definition of malicious downvoting above, but anytime someone comes up with another reason to downvote someone else they should bring it as a proposal for Community vote.
Thanks for the feedback.
I will try to clarify the de minimum part and integrate it a little better. That was kind of an after-thought and it shows.
Personally, I am not a fan of consensus decision-making -- it's hard to have a robust process that is also relatively quick. I see that as something that will likely take lots of tweaking to get it right.
My idealistic 'vision for the future' is that we have an up-front transparency system that is added to every post so that before you vote on a post, you can assess the author's metrics, so that you can decide right then and there if there are reasons other than the content that you might not want to upvote (e.g. self-voting and circle-voting metrics, past rewards, and whatever else community members think is important).
Cool.
About the consensus, to decide what behaviours are bad behaviour is going to be quite hard, tricky and would take a lot of our time, that's why I'm suggesting each case should be treated on it's merits, if a person sees something he considers bad behaviour and would like to downvote it the rule should state that he brings it up for discussion to the whole Community and the community decides on it.
I'm also saying you should finalize a rule based on this to take care of the '[2] behavior determined to be improper via an approved community-consensus protocol'
Your author's metrics idea is also really great, though, I'd say we finish these malicious downvote talks and then you propose that next.
Me too! I understand that DVs are necessary but they are the reason for conflicts when used maliciously.
Btw, these are some great suggestions @trostparadox. We can use a community-owned Downvote curation trail to automate the whole downvoting process. That trail will trigger when a particular number (let's say 5) of the community oracles downvote a post with de minimus DV. These community-selected oracles will ensure that the DV process is being followed and malicious activities are punished.
Regarding malicious downvoting, we need to properly define what exactly is considered malicious on POB. I am looking forward to see how we develop a community-consensus protocol for this particular issue.
I don't know if it's feasible but can we ask users to add a 'mandatory' comment to explain the reasons for their DV when they do it? Maybe it can be done on the front-end. This will help others to understand why someone's being downvoted and then they can base their judgment on it.
Good point.
I would support the "the technical" change, that EACH DV could not be casted out unless a certain length ( min 5-6 words? ) of explanation is attached. If only this can be implemented somehow . I'm not a coder, IDK
Such change would bring much more clarity, transparency, why did the DV took place
I think this could be done on the UI but not sure how much feasible it is to do it right now in the new ecency like frontend of POB. Maybe @leprechaun could answer.
I think it is in poor taste to not leave a comment when downvoting. I have no issue with there being a 5-6 word minimum for any downvote cast, or even a list of selections like:
Etc...because if you simply require a number of words or characters, it would not be very hard to get past that and still leave no feedback. A list to choose from would also give a guideline for a downvote built into the system.
Then what?
Would this leave the space without any further debate? It still would produce disagreements on what exactly is "spam" "tag-using" "poke in the ribs" and most importantly "limiting reward pool".
I would say that only plagiarism can be detected and proven. The rest is up to debate. Oh and NSFW (porn, yes?)
I am not saying, I have a solution where I find there is none by influencing the features. Only to take this whole realm not too seriously and not make oneself fully dependent on it (in both, financial and emotional terms).
Greetings :)
You and me both, kiddo...you and me both 😁😎😁
😎
I like this, a clear cut set of rules of what's allowed and not allowed and honestly what's not allowed listed here are to protect the assets and integrity of the platform.
What made POB so successful at first was it was an even playing field and that if crap content was posted those people got called out or simply not voted for. Your votes one of the most powerful things.
I dislike the free downvote as even though it might not be used that often for an attack even it happening 5% of the time to attack someone simply because you don't like them or their opinions shouldn't come free. At least make that person pay for it.
Having a central figure or group of people that are watched over by the community to downvote real honest bad content is a must in order to protect the community and keep it from being derailed. In my opinion there's no place for hate speech or down right disgusting content. Those are where downvotes should be used and accounts muted IMO.
I like the outline here though and having a clear direction by the tribe leader is important. Fully decentralized Unfortantlly leads to attacking, hate, abuse and some down right rater ugly stuff that no one should have to see ever. There are also some very good things that can come from decentralization, just sadly for the most part it always leans towards the easy and negative.
One post can have multiple tribe tags. What about someone who misbehaves in another tribe, gets banned and then comes to proofofbrain.io. Are we supposed to wait for the bad behavior to be established before our downvotes are deemed "malicious"?
There's a user currently spam replying content, some of which use the proofofbrain.io tags. The spammer is @hakeemshah96. @charityball banned the user from the chary.org tribe so @hakeemshah96 started using this tribe's tags. I replied about the size of my POB stake and warned the user I'd be using my stake to downvote. @hakeemshah96 seems not to care.
Thanks holovision you're handling the issue so well. The esteemed tribe leader @achimmertens ( https://www.chary.org ) is the one who cleverly blocked the scammers posts. It can be accomplished on the other content condensers with a little help from detlev or achimmertens. The spammer was harming a charity tribe by doing the old "round robin" and upvoting with several sockpuppet accounts after staking alot (and then will probably dump some tribe tokens after getting wrecked by people's efforts down to -3 rep) 😀
This is ambitious and I would love to see some kind of agreement or consensus reached about what constitutes "malicious". I have been downvoted before a few times. It was always a question about distribution and not a personal attack. I accepted the fact and moved on.
My comment or my post was "over-rewarded" in the eye of a certain stakeholder. There was nothing malicious about it, they just felt like some rewards I was currently set to receive should be returned. Did I like it? Not particularly.
The @haejin issue is the one cause for concern with this proposal. Once we have had the downvote rules set, it sets up a very simple form of abuse. 10 easy low effort posts with maximum reward from another user per day, not plagarism, not spam, just low effort posts... often. Without the ability to downvote, this user and voter would be able to make out like bandits while making the trending page look like a joke. I feel that there needs to be room for checking abuse, and this gets very grey and very dirty, and end up malicious. I am not sure how these standards should be set.
I also have the same thought with you about this point. I have a proposal in my post if we can have a way to limit the maximum reward per UV. By this, it force authors to spend more effort to create better content and attract more reader/voter :)
I hate the whole concept of "over-rewarded." It reminds me very much of people who hate billionaires because they aren't one. If someone like @allcapsonezero creates a post that everyone in the entire Hive-sphere loves and adores, then @allcapsonezero should reap the benefit of such a post. If someone spends thousands of fiat money on proofofbrain tokens to gain more voting power, the value of pob goes up...which is kinda the point, in my opinion. At the same time, they have more voting power where they also reap a benefit from curation. I promise if I was only expecting meager returns from my posts, curation, and leasing, I would never have put fiat money into the system in exchange for the token. I don't like petty downvoting, and I'm not a fan of automatic upvoting either. I think people should manually vote...but that's another story for another post :)
As someone who creates content for YouTube where I'm restricted to 100 uploads per day and have hit that limit dozens of times, I'm not a huge fan of limits for quality posts...now the question is, what is quality? I made a list of reasons I think a DV could be warranted in a comment above (assuming it stays where it's at lol )...but those are my thoughts. If they become accepted by the community, it becomes a helpful standard...the point of bringing the subject up.
You really shouldn't be talking about DV's, you're abusing them incredibly, and targeting people, just because you don't like them. I am over it, but just pointing out, you're talking crap!
Downvotes are not good or bad, they're just tools that are necessary in the system but then this should only mean that they should be rightly used in accordance with some set rules and standard which of course you have rightly talked about. I believe maliciousness is something we can tackle by following a protocol that everybody has initially agreed to and come to understand as well. This is really good, I've been waiting to see you post and definitely this was good to actually move forward from all the bad energy we've been getting lately.
Thanks for the comment.
I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to rules. But they are needed from time to time.
I would have much less to say about DVs if a DV 'cost' the same as an equivalent UV. And, yes, I understand why the 'free DV' was instituted. Personally, I believe that was a quick and easy fix that served a purpose; but creative 'outside the box' thinking is needed moving forward, especially at the tribe level.
The current system gives way too much power to whales who could do a lot of damage within a tribe with just a handful of wayward DVs (which cost them virtually nothing to use).
I am convinced this Proof of Brain community will be able to experiment and come up with creative and better ways to monitor and deal with abuse. My expectation is that the Proof of Brain tribe will be a trendsetter in this area (of developing alternative ways to deal with 'bad actors', other than 'free DVs').
So your think whales do their DV's only because they can do it FREE of charge???
So wrong.
Give me a payable, but UNLIMITED downvotes. Give me that possibility. Please.
I will be happy to pay, once I see it suitable and needed.
I think whales are people, too. They have emotions like the rest of us. The only difference between a whale and a minnow is the amount of size of numbers on each side of the decimal. Someone told me I had more responsibility because I became a dolphin...bs...I'm the same guy I was when I hit the sign up button...I just put money where my mouth was. What I don't think is right is petty downvotes that are automated or spiteful downvotes. I know I have guidelines for my downvotes, but I use them sparingly, because most people don't do the things necessary to be downvoted...imo...case in point-I read a post by someone with an opinion I disagreed with, politically. I didn't downvote it. I didn't upvote it either. I just commented against it. I've always (since I joined SteemIt years ago) understood votes to represent the value you give the post for the community. If you think it brings value to the community at large or group within it, upvote away. If it tears the community, breaks it, encourages fleeing the community--like spam, not using the NSFW tag when it applies, plagiarism, etc.--then a downvote is warranted.
Those are my 0.02 POB's worth...
@trostparadox
I feel inclined to agree. You can read my recent post and see that I have a similar sentiment. I understand why downvoting exists but it seems to be counterproductive and have unintended consequences, and users try to use their influence to go on attack. I have warned about this repeatedly in my posts, so I think this conversation is worth having. I am using an analogy, that if you have an issue with your neighbor, we should use our words to address the issue, rather than immediately using your vote weight to affect their ability to earn a living. It can make living in a community tense.
I really like the ideas here, reminds of a workplace without a code of conduct vs one with and how it is alot easier to build a good cohesive workplace environment when you have some common agreed principles to refer to.
Playing devils advocate, who watches the watcher as only one person can mute at the moment, which means one judge, jury and executioner...
I'm sure you read @themarkymark's excellent post about how Layer 2 tribes and tokens are not at all decentralized -- that the tribe account owner has complete control over a LOT of consequential aspects.
As Marky pointed out, putting your trust in a tribe and token really means putting your trust in the tribe's account owner.
There is no way around that; however, a blockchain tribe/community is the people, not the bits & bytes, not the token, not the front-end. If a tribe account owner ever becomes tyrannical and/or unwilling to listen to the demands and expectations of the tribe members, the members can simply create a new tribe and a new token, and airdrop the new token to match the old token's distribution (minus the tyrant), similar to what the Hive community did after JS's hostile takeover of
Steem.As such, it is the constant threat of a tribal 'hard fork' that will generally keep tribe account owners on good behavior; that plus the fact that the tribe must compete against all the other tribes out there in order to stay relevant and to keep its members interested and engaged and willing to keep investing their time and treasure.
There is no guarantee this will have any value. Most will stay with the old system because their money is there and will be afraid to do anything due to the sunk cost fallacy.
Ultimately it will just move one centralized system to another centralized system. It all comes down to trust, something crypto is suppose to be able to avoid. There are few that have proved themselves in a way that I would trust with sole control of a $1M+ market cap token and many haven't had the chance to prove themselves with numbers that matter.
Yes, that is part of the risk. However, if most stay with the old tribe & token, then maybe the tyrant wasn't so bad, after all?
I kinda view it like the CEO of a company you are thinking about investing in. If you trust the CEO, then invest in the company. If you are unsure about the CEO, then maybe think twice before investing.
In fact, the Hive-Engine tribe & token arrangement is quite similar to Facebook's governance structure. Even though Zuckerberg only owns 16% of the company (by valuation), he controls 58% of the voting shares. As such, Mark Zuckerberg can literally do anything he pleases with the company, and no one can stop him. Layer 2 tribes & tokens are much the same.
Justin Sun stole over $10M by change balances to user accounts. Yet there are tons of people still on Steem. Even those who don’t believe in Steem any more.
I agree with the trust aspect but there is a big difference. Facebook is accountable to rules and regulations. There is very little he can get away with while crypto is the Wild West. We have had many scams on Hive alone that would flat out get someone in jail but in the they usually get away with it.
Although crypto certainly 'feels' like the Wild West, given the fact that every action is immutably stored on the blockchain, truly illegal behavior should be relatively easy to prosecute. Or am I being overly naive here?
Have any of his actions been brought before a court of law, either civilly or criminally?
Most people here are anonymous, and generally the police want no part in anything online, crypto or not. So unless you are ready to front major legal bills, most people get away with it. There are a few examples of this even on Hive like bellyrub and Magic Dice.
Yes, there is an active lawsuit.
Same? Ha ha ha.
At least we know Mark Zuckerberg's history, his past activities, strength and weaknesses.
What we (you) know about a person, who is hiding behind this 100% anonymous account "proofofbrainio" ???
Did this person first time discovered Hive only on 25-02-2021 ???
Did he never had any other Hive or Steem account?
Has no FB, Twitter, IG, reddit, or god-knows whatever other socialnetwork accounts?
Why on Earth is he hiding his roots so hard, IF he has no bad long term intentions?
I'm waiting for the answers.
I've stated it before but I'll state it again: I know @proofofbrainio probably isn't Satoshi Nakamoto. Sometimes I wonder though...Or, @proofofbrainio is a time traveler limited by a temporal prime directive.👽
I would also say, we vote with our fingers...if we don't like the community any more, we sell the POB we've staked/earned. I know I've put hard earned USD into Hive and POB. If I felt it was not beneficial to me to be here anymore, I would sell (as long as it was still worth something) and move on to the next best thing. I'm sure you'd do the same. With your account (@holovision) value sitting around $4-5K, I'm guessing you've put $$ in the game, too...then again, I did see you've been around for 3 years, so it's possible it was all just posting/curation awards... for @onealfa around $60K I'm guestimating, I can understand that certainty in the system is key for his nest egg. The community requires certainty to a degree or it falls apart. As trustless as crypto can be, we actually have to use trust in this case.
I had not thought of the idea of hard forking the tribe, it becomes a bit like the old MAD model, a tyrants know he can only push so far...
Thank you @trostparadox,
You did well to establish a definition for malicious downvoting.
It may be difficult at this moment to define what is "improper" but this proposed draft is getting us all one step closer to understanding. I really believe all the community can find a consensus and I'm thankful for the transparency during this process.
Great stuff!!
The only thing I can suggest is to make the wording as simple as possible. We have a lot of users on here who’s first language isn’t English so I find it is important that these things are accessible to everyone. 😁
Interesting position. Maybe translating it into common languages would help if once this is approved by the community. Well, probably better if it’s done before I guess.
Perhaps we could have translators in the community who are rewarded for translating?
We could set up a specific channel in Discord to faciliate this process.
It's a good proposal. We'll have to address that in the future.
Excellent point. Feel free to suggest alternative wording and/or to point out specific phrases or statements that might be easily misconstrued.
I think that explaining the words in simple terms at the start of the post will go a long way.
Explanations of : Muting, plagiarism, community-consensus protocol.
Maybe even explaining what an alt account is?
I love this! Translation and simplicity, very important for the Community's rules. I'd see what part I can play when the rules become final.
Well noted !
Thank you :)
I still feel downvoting shouldn't be done by an individual member, there should be a selected few who should carry out the act.
Any break in protocols/rules should be reported (there could be a page where complaint is carried out) discord right? Misconduct will be reviewed in the page and appropriate charge LL be given.
Just my thoughts though
I feel the same way. I want to protect the group, but I don’t know there’s anyway I can do to identify plagiarism and notify everyone for a consensus before that individual is stopped or received rewards.
I had an instance yesterday of someone plagiarizing images for some time. Over a dozen times. I was able to DV one image that was just about to pay out.
There is no way I can have the time to catch it all before a thief gets rewarded. At this time, I’ve talked to HW, SFR, and marky about different techniques or tactics to efficiently identify these acts.
At this time, reporting suspicious posts and manual verification are by far the best methods. Checker tools are not always effective.
So, for every post now I DV I include the suspicion, the passage I identify, and the article link. In my most recent DV I also included the referenced article passage.
Finally I post the article to the spam abuse channel for review.
Honestly friend, I’m all ears for suggestions. Please, if you and the community think consensus method for DV against plagiarism is worthwhile I will do it and will not regret doing so. I feel, however, it will overwhelm us.
I certainly would not take the ability for an individual to downvote, though. I also hate it when people suggest going onto discord as a "solution." If something is wrong in the community, there should be a way to address it within the community, otherwise, why don't we all just give this hive thing up and go and make posts on discord? Just like we have witnesses, I don't see why there couldn't be a Downvoting board elected to be notified when someone is violating the community's guidelines, but the community first needs to come into agreement on guidelines. If the downvoting group gets out of hand, we could "vote them off the island" much like representatives...like people appointed judges with terms, but no term limits. You'll never be able to outsmart the cheats because people will always find a way to cheat, but we can mitigate it...I am thinking very much in terms of separation of powers in my thoughts regarding a Downvoting board...but they'd have to be compensated and we'd have to be able to flag the perpetrators...I think YouTube and Facebook have teams that do similar work for posts on their sites.
Thank you very much. I like your ideas. It’s been made pretty obvious to me at this point now how the system can be circumvented. The best we can do is work together against it.
I think this is the best thing to come out of all the recent drama.
I agree entirely with your proposal, the logic behind it and the method you wish to use to employ it.
The warning system will ensure people have sufficient warnings, while allowing the down vote system to be used appropriately as intented for plagerizm and bad content.
I applaud your work on this and look forward to it being ratified
What is "bad" content?
How long will be your definition of "bad" ???
We will have to address this point certainly.
I actually phrased that badly forgive the pun, but my meaning was basically abusive content or content that may be frowned apon by the community.
The community will need to develop its own guidelines in this regard.
The proposed DV rules are just a starting point.
My hope is that we will be able to create a transparency system where each post will have meaningful metrics about the author's posting and voting habits displayed with the post, along with direct links to supporting info that might cause a tribe member to think twice about upvoting.
I believe up-front (i.e. on the post) transparency will go a long way towards limiting 'bad actors' from taking advantage of tribe members.
Taking this kind of stance is never popular but it needs to be done for the greater good of the community, ensuring that when someone calls out another with verifiable proof will ensure that the community has a much better prospective on a given situation.
I believe your proposal has valid merit and I will support t, with what value I have, rewards are great but they mean nothing without transparency
First - Second - Third
Like your way of Warning because some may post by mistake or someelse, I do not say about plagiarism for sure
But at all it is good proposal
I feel like malicious downvoting should be defined beforehand. Otherwise we wont't be able to react quickly enough.
Imagine a whale going on an absolute spam/selfvote bender the second this proposal gets accepted.
It would either take weeks for us to find consensus on malicous behavior or we would basically start downvoting him right away, taking away any credibility from the first proposal.
Malicious downvoting has already been defined here as any downvote apart from [1] plagiarism [2] what Community-consensus has agreed is bad behavior.
To move forward we should come up with how the community would reach consensus on what is bad behavior. That can be really hard/impossible to do, so I'm thinking it would be best if we treat each case individually, maybe everytime someone has a reason to downvote another they bring it up to seek consensus and once consensus is reached the downvote can be made with the agreed weight.
Well well well , 100% UV.
I get what I asked in my post
Muting accounts for misuse of down voting is extreme. Could there be a way to disable down voting on their account instead of essentially destroying their account?
Personally, I think all tribes would do well to adopt a no-DV policy, except for plagiarism and posts that are clearly against the community's stated guidelines. Tribes are entirely voluntary and the mute only mutes the individual from that tribe.
If you don't agree with the tribe's guidelines and rules, stay away from that tribe. That does, of course, require that the tribe be up-front about its guidelines and rules -- hence the reason for this post.
May be downvoting can be mandated with a comment to justify the downvote and there can be a community to keep a check on such comments.
But I beg to ask... Where do you fall on hate speech? Calls to action in violence? And other forms of discrimination? These are things downvotes are best used to attack on my opinion... But you have no mention of them here....
A code of conduct is definitely needed, I haven't come across one... In it's absence, downvotes will do. Maybe I'm missing something.. but the only "rules" I see, are "have a brain"..
Never been much for downvotes, not enough time to police others. Up to the community wide.
This looks pretty good, @trostparadox. It would help put an end to many of the dramas that have hit the POB community lately.
I am accepting all.
yes
yes
yes
all yes.
You think 99% right
You will have my support on this.
This would be a great proposal if eventually submitted. Love the warnings given before strict actions are followed. This is how it ought to be.