OK, I start with 3rd, because I have nothing to add to the first two points:
Ban selfvotes!
Sure, but often the biggest abusers also have the biggest number of different accounts ... Maybe something like 'diminishing returns' when upvoting the same accounts (also own one's) again and again would be more effective?
Forbid buybots and “vote for delegation“!
How do you want to 'forbid' that in a decentralized network?
I would say: flag posts upvoted by bid bots, and it's not worth anymore to pay for them! That's one thing that works rather well already on HIVE in my opinion.
Reintroduce the open/read posting counter!
Well, maybe only count these visitors who stayed at least for a certain amount of time ... But right, I agree.
One question should be "Where does abuse start, where does it stop?" That alone is difficult to define. I have observed - even on myself - that the (moral?) boundary shifts the richer you get. In the beginning I never used a selfvote - I'm not my biggest fan myself. I even found it disgusting when I saw this - even with small users - in others. At some point the penny dropped that the quality of the articles had long since become a minor matter and that's when I lost any "shame" as well.
Maybe 'diminishing returns' are a solution, but also a bit unfair to those who are very diligent, each article is a very good one and for this reason alone I want to support them regularly.
Since the rigorous solution - each user only one account, selfvotes forbidden - is not possible in this system, there is no meaningful control in my opinion. And on the insight of the people can unfortunately not bet.
Flags are okay. But who uses them? Most people are afraid of a flagwar and without a "higher instance", it is anyway hardly possible to find out every selfvoter, every votebuyer.
If I see that a user has bought excessive votes or does so regularly, I won't vote. Others only vote because they know exactly that the user pays bots and so they get a higher CR if they are earlier than the bot.
How you do it, you do it wrong - we cannot change people and their attitudes. But it's certainly always good to call a spade a spade and provoke new thinking, as you do here.
I won't let myself be annoyed by the circumstances any more. As long as I enjoy it, I blog. Those who like my texts, vote for them, those who don't like them, leave them alone. I don't question it anymore - sometimes I still grin... ;-)
I try not to consider the topic in particular as moral question (even if it partly is one). If someone upvotes themselves or 'curates' a bad post because that brings them more curation rewards, they do it because it's possible (we are - some more, some less - greedy humans by nature)! :)
I try to find solutions which discourage certain kinds of behaviour which in the long term damage the platform.
Maybe 'diminishing returns' are a solution, but also a bit unfair to those who are very diligent, each article is a very good one and for this reason alone I want to support them regularly.
As long as "regularly" wouldn't mean several times per day (the definition @haejin prefers), the impact of 'diminishing returns' would be rather small. The good thing about 'diminishing returns' is that nothing was forbidden, but with every further upvote, the rewards were getting smaller (however, your voting power when upvoting your 'best friends' would of course recover after a while).
Flags are okay. But who uses them? Most people are afraid of a flagwar and without a "higher instance", it is anyway hardly possible to find out every selfvoter, every votebuyer.
Yes, of course flags are (too often) misused, but at the same time served to control @haejin here and bid bots.
In my eyes it's not the aim to punish every single self-vote etc. but there should always be the threat that it could happen if one does it too often (similar like not every person who drives too fast is catched, but the probability is rather high ...).
How you do it, you do it wrong - we cannot change people and their attitudes.
We aren't living in a perfect world and won't reach perfection on HIVE (even if I think it's worth trying to improve the system). I like your attitude to try to have some fun anyway.
OK, I start with 3rd, because I have nothing to add to the first two points:
Sure, but often the biggest abusers also have the biggest number of different accounts ... Maybe something like 'diminishing returns' when upvoting the same accounts (also own one's) again and again would be more effective?
How do you want to 'forbid' that in a decentralized network?
I would say: flag posts upvoted by bid bots, and it's not worth anymore to pay for them! That's one thing that works rather well already on HIVE in my opinion.
Well, maybe only count these visitors who stayed at least for a certain amount of time ... But right, I agree.
One question should be "Where does abuse start, where does it stop?" That alone is difficult to define. I have observed - even on myself - that the (moral?) boundary shifts the richer you get. In the beginning I never used a selfvote - I'm not my biggest fan myself. I even found it disgusting when I saw this - even with small users - in others. At some point the penny dropped that the quality of the articles had long since become a minor matter and that's when I lost any "shame" as well.
Maybe 'diminishing returns' are a solution, but also a bit unfair to those who are very diligent, each article is a very good one and for this reason alone I want to support them regularly.
Since the rigorous solution - each user only one account, selfvotes forbidden - is not possible in this system, there is no meaningful control in my opinion. And on the insight of the people can unfortunately not bet.
Flags are okay. But who uses them? Most people are afraid of a flagwar and without a "higher instance", it is anyway hardly possible to find out every selfvoter, every votebuyer.
If I see that a user has bought excessive votes or does so regularly, I won't vote. Others only vote because they know exactly that the user pays bots and so they get a higher CR if they are earlier than the bot.
How you do it, you do it wrong - we cannot change people and their attitudes. But it's certainly always good to call a spade a spade and provoke new thinking, as you do here.
I won't let myself be annoyed by the circumstances any more. As long as I enjoy it, I blog. Those who like my texts, vote for them, those who don't like them, leave them alone. I don't question it anymore - sometimes I still grin... ;-)
I try not to consider the topic in particular as moral question (even if it partly is one). If someone upvotes themselves or 'curates' a bad post because that brings them more curation rewards, they do it because it's possible (we are - some more, some less - greedy humans by nature)! :)
I try to find solutions which discourage certain kinds of behaviour which in the long term damage the platform.
As long as "regularly" wouldn't mean several times per day (the definition @haejin prefers), the impact of 'diminishing returns' would be rather small. The good thing about 'diminishing returns' is that nothing was forbidden, but with every further upvote, the rewards were getting smaller (however, your voting power when upvoting your 'best friends' would of course recover after a while).
Yes, of course flags are (too often) misused, but at the same time served to control @haejin here and bid bots.
In my eyes it's not the aim to punish every single self-vote etc. but there should always be the threat that it could happen if one does it too often (similar like not every person who drives too fast is catched, but the probability is rather high ...).
We aren't living in a perfect world and won't reach perfection on HIVE (even if I think it's worth trying to improve the system). I like your attitude to try to have some fun anyway.