Why should someone be "punished" for upping exactly what they deem worthwhile content with diminished returns?
Right, why should that be punished? And especially, who would want to punish it? :)
In the last consequence that would be the death of curation, pretty much. ... But I do, because it puts those at a disadvantage, who are my loyal followers
I think these are completely wrong assumptions.
Diminishing returns would only have a strong effect on those who upvoted other accounts very frequently. If you upvoted for example your friends (or your 'precious content creator buddies') lets say thrice a week, there wouldn't be any (or a very small) effect on curation and author rewards. If however, you played a little @haejin, and created ten short posts per day to upvote them yourself, the effect would be rather strong (how strong depended on the configured parameters of the formula) - rightly so!
Already now your voting power gets less when you vote a lot, and recovers when you stop. The same would apply for the effect of diminishing returns.
One other interesting aspect is that it would affect flagging, too: if someone flagged anybody not once but very often to take all their rewards, the consecutive flags would become weaker and weaker ...
By the way, even on STEEM I find quite some interesting posts if I keep searching. I think it's worth it to try to find some new authors from time to time, and stick with my opinion that it's a good idea to reward the attempt to spread one's votes on as many (good) different authors as possible (but no, it is not necessary/forced, even not with diminishing returns).
You're very negative about this somehow. I don't understand this.
I for example frequently upvote an Italian painter (@armandosodano), about daily. This man is producing beautiful art, and spices up his art posts with ample photos and neat texts, often historical context. I have learned a lot from him and really enjoy his stuff. Why should I vote for somebody else?
He also happens to like my paintings, although I suspect it's more a teacher's encouragement for an eager student. In any event, I can't see anything wrong with us being "buddies" as you put it. Oh yeah, I always vote for my wife. I have to live with the woman, so may I be excused please?
O. K., I can live with that. Compromise sold. I take the hit on daily Armando, if he ever comes to Blurt. He won't have to, since I can't post more than every 3, 4 days or so. BTW, the diminishing flags are interesting, but that doesn't really apply here.
I don't search. My feeds are full of them. Unfortunately my investment is not large enough to spread around very much. I vote 50%+, that's not that much to go around, and only on Hive. I'm nobody on Steem and Blurt, and generously distribute 100% votes of next to nothing, but that doesn't help anybody.
If I may ask, you upvoted your own comment. What's the reasoning there? Just curious.
No, but you corrected me when I wrote "friends", so as kind of a joke I tried to seek a more appropriate term. :)
I neither.
Sure (and I also upvote my wife), but anyway: an algorithm doesn't accuse or excuse anybody.
Diminishing returns wouldn't 'forbid' anything ... but I just had to realize that my 27th upvote of my wife, my best friend, buddy or alt account would count somewhat less than my first upvote at the same day ... nothing really dramatic in my eyes. I just had to choose if I insisted to upvote my wife 27 times a day (with less and less rewards per upvote) or if I would think about to grant upvote number 27 to someone else. :-) I would be completely free, and it's not about moral, just about an incentive to spread my votes within the community - at least to a certain degree.
And maybe he actually would profit from the fact that also other users (not only you) would think about to spread their upvotes, too. That means that Armando would possibly receive my upvote number 27th from time to time (which until now had been reserved for my wife). :)
To earn money? :)
Here are neither flags nor diminishing returns implemented, that means self- and circle-voting are highly appreciated.
Yes, I urge to change that (because I think that in the long run that would be much better for all invstors!), but as long as nobody changes it, I see no reason to let all rewards go to Korean mini posts, and simply claim my part of the cake.
I am not an angel but an investor with self-interests ...
(OK, and as these rewards are only pennies when converted, I admit that my self-voting is also a way to hint at the obvious problem: in a functioning society there would be anybody/any means to curb that ...)
That's just weird. I mean, to worry about deincentivising destructive behavior with diminishing returns, which supposedly have only a tiny impact, and at the same time condoning self voting.
You see, I don't have a problem with anybody wasting their VP however they see fit, even on themselves - as long as the respective post has a modicum of value. Others do. Now I'm confused, but at least I'm confused on much higher level than before ;-)
Don't worry about answering; not much Sunday left. Thanks for the exchange; it was informative.
When living in the jungle, to survive you have to adapt to the laws of the jungle ... that doesn't necessarily mean that you prefer to live in a jungle.
Have a nice evening! :)
That's not nice!
You could be involved in the development of alternative instruments (other than downvotes and non-linear curves) that prevent or curb abuse.
The founders and developers of BLURT invest a lot of idealism and a lot of time of their lives in this.
I also bring a lot of idealism with me.
Sabotage, which you are doing, is the very wrong way here!
This reasoning contains no ethics.
I also live offline in a "jungle". But I don't do all the bad things just because I'm not punished for them.
I am very disappointed.
Beantwortet an anderer Stelle.
Can you stop sounding racist?
I am no Korean or related. I am an African but I have read you refer to a particular set of people/country in multiple comments/posts.
It sounds really racist and toxic even if the people you refer to are from the countries you mention.
I suggest you speak about individuals rather than their country or race.