Well it has a downside if someone wants to start flagging you I guess :)
I'm not looking to mandate anything, just figure out what a reasonable and acceptable level of self-voting might be.
As for your comments about Whales. Yes, it is possible. They can get passive income from setting up a bid bot, selling votes or even leasing out SP. The Whales don't need to interact at all to get an income from STEEM.
Thanks for your comments. I have been advocating that the platform really needs to focus all of its efforts on community guidelines and training for those who want to do all we can to support the ecosystem. Too many people come here with their own ideas of what is going on as a result we have seriously inconsistent and sometimes conflicting agendas. I get that this is supposed to be in some ways a free for all, but this is the downside I believe. Social networking ecosystems are delicate and without oversight they constantly run the risk of collapsing. Just my thoughts.
I tend to agree, but I'm not sure how it can be done while respecting the anarchic principles and decentralisation that underlies the platform. I think forming a voluntary community with higher standards that people can opt in to is probably the way to go, but the closest I've seen to that is MSP.
Thanks for the comments. The challenge is that if these groups get formed they become a centralized group. My girlfriend is on Steemit and is Thai and is being threatened because she is posting Thai stories in English, even though they are positive stories and support all of the guidelines that Thai group set up. My point is that whatever suggestion we can think of will create some central authority that is by its nature going to impose some set of "guidelines" that have to have penalties and then you have a central authority. this where I am trying to figure out how these types of ecosystems will actually work. With no oversight and "rules" it is a free for all, and with them there is restricted behavior. I cannot see a compromise nor can I point to one that exists unless there is an overriding factor to make people do the right thing. A good example is a kibbutz or a cooperative farming model. But to have something like that here, we have to remove the big emphasis on money. The focus on money works against everything we seem to want to achieve here. Just my thoughts. thanks.
It's a very good point, but it depends on the community. You might have a community run by a benevolant dictator, there might be some kind of democratically elected committe of reps or it could just be driven directly by some sort of consensus mechanism. I think that is potentially the beauty of the platform, you can build any kind of community on top of it with any kind of system of governance.
In many respects the Anarchic platform is a bit like a blank canvas. The law (code) of this blockchain is just a baseline.
PS - The group your girlfriend is in sounds a bit dysfunctional. If she's following guidelines and getting threatened then it does not seem to be running properly?
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I fully agree that having a benevolent dictator type scenario can work but it will probably be temporary as things always change. Consensus is great too but as you know it and people can be manipulated or tricked into thinking they are doing the right thing.
I am struggling with this issue currently because I am working on a project with these exact issues. How to create communities not fiefdoms and and how to motivate people to do the right thing? Can it be done without strong arm tactics? How do you incentivize people to stay on the positive course. Challenging in today's world to say the least. 3 years ago I was offered to run a platform like Steemit but turned it down because I could not see how to move people away from being motivated by money to being interested in the community. I am still not sure it can actually work, so I am a student here. Watching. participating, and urging when I can. Our world needs environments where community is at the center, and I believe in humanity so I am helpful, but still searching.
In terms of my girlfriend, yes I agree. I suggested to her to contact the head of the group directly and see his demeanor. If he is unfair or unapologetic, then you have to disregard this group. This would be a shame because the Thai group is small and they are trying to bring people together. She has a great personality and fantastic organizational skills and she is motivated to help. We will see though.
Thanks and keep on thinking and focusing on making this place the one we know it can be. :)