Image Credit: By Eduard von Grützner - Bukowskis, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=58584493
A modest proposal
@tarazkp is organizing a movement to establish a committee that will regulate Steemit for the benefit of the community. He is an honorable man with virtuous intentions. Social justice is desperately needed in current “wild west” environment of Steemit with vigilantes warring against supposed reward pool exploiters. I would like to contribute to his Helsing project with some modest proposals.
The Helsing project will require a central standing bureau that coordinates the activities of the enforcement arm of Helsing. Let us pick a random number to designate the group and call it the 310 office. The central standing bureau ought to be comprised of 5-7 whales with enough steem power to overwhelm any errant whales who may oppose the Helsing project. Seven members seem to be a number, in which different opinions can be easily discussed without it devolving into some parliamentary circus, while at the same time, have enough diverse voices to not be parochial.
Coordinating an organization such as Helsing can be time-consuming work, and the potential of loss of revenue from flagging actions by central standing bureau members for violations of Helsing policies will need to be compensated. After all, we are not communists. From the general reward pool, 15-25% of the total reward should be disbursed to the Helsing central standing bureau as a gratuity for their service. From this boon, the central standing bureau can disburse requisite payment to the 310 office for its service in enforcement actions.
Since flag wars drain the reward pool and produce negative environment for Steemit community, I propose that all flagging activity be declared unlawful under the Helsing project guidelines. Any violators, ie those who use the flagging option outside the authority of the Helsing central standing bureau or its delegated enforcers at the 310 office, shall be placed under punitive ban. The offender shall remit specified fines, as determined by the Helsing central standing bureau, to the Helsing project and may also be subject to exile (cannot be active on Steemit) for a specified length of time as determined by the Helsing central standing bureau. Helsing project can only work properly, when the flagging option becomes exclusive to the Helsing project members.
The 310 office shall have the responsibility of discovering violators of Helsing convention, whether it be spam, reward pool exploitation, unlicensed flagging, plagiarism, low quality content, etc, and prioritizing the offenders in order of egregious violations for review by the central standing bureau. Human beings, rather than bots, seem more reliable filter for such policing duties, though bot can be utilized judiciously. To streamline the judicial process, the 310 office ought to have the authority to issue fines and flags for low level offenders. For serious or unrepentant, ie repeat, offenders, the central standing bureau should intervene with more serious punitive measures.
Since the community is compensating for the time and energy of the Helsing commission, it would seem prudent to set a quota of violations that the 310 office discovers and adjudicates each week, or month. In order to prevent an oligarchy of power, I suggest an annual meeting of Steemit People’s Congress, from which convention new Helsing policies be determined and from which new members of the central standing bureau be elected. For the sake of efficiency, I propose that the central standing bureau determine the agenda and the policies to be voted by the SPC. The candidates for central standing bureau, by necessity of reality, must be limited to those who hold enough Steem Power to be classified as a whale. The 310 office should operate as an appointed body, rather than and elected body, to limit potential corruption inherent in democratic processes.
Submitted for your consideration.
Agree
you have to conform to and agree to the Helsing convention to be on steemit .
What is Low quality ? Define it or is it what the convention disagrees with . ( subjective)
an appointed body is free of corruption ?
Disagree
How is this not an oligarchy of power . The people that you are controlling over with punitive damage have no say in the enforcement of the power over them .
The first ting that needs to be done is an outline of what the purpose/objective of Helsing is . Then from there how each objectives purpose is executed .
You have listed some management issues that have to be considered with a path to accomplish them . An outlined /starting point so to speak to get the thought process and ball rolling .
Too heavy handed.
Yes but I think that is what the author is trying to say. Umsure though.
Is there even a consensus on what the problem is?
Not completely. There are different views but consensus at this scale is difficult when decentralised hence the need for a mechanism
Yeah this is way too heavy handed. Flagging is a feature of the block chain that is there for a reason. Whilst I don't disagree with the concept of pooled resources in the interest of platform harmony, if you're going to start dictating the regular day to day of people on the platform, instead of just regulating the outlier misbehavior, then I am no longer on board (not that my opinion really counts for that much anyway)
What you're talking about sounds very much like a government. We don't want thst.
Agreed.
Why create a centralized bureaucracy to combat a decentralized digital foe? This would go contrary to the anarchistic values of the block chain. If a whale wants to do good, he can go to other whales and discuss it with them, and then, if they want to, they can work together.
It doesn't require a centralized office to protect the reward pool.
At least @soo.chong163 is taking the initiative to do something. I think it is a novel idea. It seems from the comments below that most people are very adverse to having a governing board of Whales, however. Anyway, its a start. My question: is the basic idea a good one? Is such a thing possible?
Blessings.
I resteemed this for transparency, not out of agreement. I thought it would be interesting to get wider views on the matter so thanks.
Thank you so much for making it clear explicitly. I was alarmed with the action of resteeming after reading the content. I am sure many would be. The constant discussions of flagging innocent posts on steemit is already worrisome for planktons like me. I don't want this idea of yours ending up as something like that owing to an error in execution. I appreciate the author's intention to support your idea. But I don't think this is the way. Thanks for stating your views explicitly.
your post is very good, you deserve success in this steemit, I will follow you, and hopefully I also like you