I find that voting for your own posts abhorrent and antithetical to free market principles, and at worst an enabler for the narcissist - i.e 'the takers' in society - the human vampires.
IN PRINCIPLE....
Upvoting for your own posts has nothing to do with free markets and property rights.
YOU DO NOT BAKE A LOAF OF BREAD TO SELL, THEN GIVE YOURSELF THE MONEY FOR IT (thus 'paying yourself') ...AND THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE SALE !
The same with posts.
Upvoting yourself is - at best - a slightly deluded appraisal of your own worth - and worst - a tool for the narcissists and takers, to earn from nothing.
The free market allocates value to the producers - i.e those who the consumers value.
The market does not reward the producers for consuming their own product.
It's a system that is open for the takers in society - the vampire predator - and closed to those who live life life using a moral and and ethical compass.
Why?
Because it's not an ethical action, and thus, those with a moral compass would naturally refrain from such actions.
I.e The code is written to reward the predator at the cost of the ethically minded.
WITH ONE EXCEPTION - WITNESSES.
Witness have costs. Rewarding yourself to cover those cost is just that - You are covering costs of the infrastructure so that it may be used by all.
I see no moral or ethical conflict in witnesses upvoting themselves .
Their product is the maintenance, smooth running, of upkeep of the user platform
So a question to all the developers and witnesses.
Is the possible to code this into the platform ?
This would eliminate the worst abusers of the self upvoting.
Take opidia'a account.
....Almost no engagement, almost nothing in fact - yet she manages to upvote herself nonstop on most posts and comments after day or two (see screenshots below for just a few examples)
This does not include the 100% on self upvoting her four words of comments, either.
While I'm hunting this particular witch at the moment (a witch is someone who uses natural, available energies, to control others) this is not witch hunt - this covers all self upvote users.
Nor am I sitting on some moral high round here - I think many people upvote without thinking about the wider philosophical and moral aspects of their actions.
Hopefully this post will act as such - and highlight the unconscious behaviors by fundamentally good people who were simply not aware of what the action , signified.
It only ENCOURAGES the malignant narcissist to use, and abuse the system.......
Think about it...
Imagine valuing your own work so highly, you disregard what people think of your efforts,(the free market), but that you feel that your work is so good, that you should pay yourself for doing it ! lolol
These is the actions of 'the taker' as I mentioned above.
The narcissist.
She is not adding value , she's just taking.
Taking rewards for herself....And that is only made possible by the 'self upvoting' function mechanism being available to everyone.
Allowing witnesses only, to upvote themselves to cover running cost - stops that mechanism dead in it's tracks...
Not only that, it gives an incentive to become a witness !!!
(free markets and incentives are inextricable from one another...).
This is the list of top 20 witnesses that I vote for, personally - so I'll tag them for any input...
@saboin
@megadrive
@blurtlatam
@tekraze
@imransoudagar
@blurthispano
@freakeao
How the narcissist an manipulator see upvoting for themselves....WINNING ! (and all at the expense of honest players on Blurt.)
Suppose for a moment you are a presidential candidate, and you must exercise your right to vote; would you vote for you or for your opponent? beyond this moral dilemma, it would be to ask ourselves if the system should allow you to exercise that right or should it suspend it? would it violate your right as a human being?
Having said that, I have always thought that if the system allows you to do so then you can use it, one because it was designed that way or two because it is a bug that has not been fixed which leaves us a lot to say about the developers. But, there is always a but, the problem lies when the auto vote is directed one and exclusively to over exploit the rewards, think for a moment if you auto vote this publication but distribute the other 99% to other users, are you exploiting the system? I think not. The problem lies when notoriously there are people who use this only for their benefit without thinking about the benefit of others. So it becomes a person who damages the ecosystem, but what about those who do not vote? those who only post and do not share their votes? the chain is designed for interaction and there is a large group that does not vote or comment. For me both cause damage to the ecosystem.
All very good points my friend.
Just as I defend the rights of those who use VTS, I also defend those who choose to use their stake to self vote. Even if they were to use 100% of their voting power to do so.
It's their property, not mine, yours or any other persons.
I also believe that in the long run they stunt their own growth here when doing so. Folks typically will not support for very long people who are stingy with their votes, especially when there are so many others who aren't. So in the long run karma will have its day with those who choose to exercise their property rights in such a fashion.
I disagree. Her purchasing the amount of stake she did that allwos her to give herself such nice upvotes does add value in taking that Blurt off the market and then staking it. There is an argument (which I've made many times in my defense of VTS) to be made for a definite value being had from those who would be more of an investor than building a community around themselves.
In fact, one could posit that a site that has only users who invest little to anything will always result in a lower coin value than one that has ore users who are more purely investors.
Some time back I even proposed allowing those who wish to be an investor and not a blogger to log into their wallet, and collect the rewards they would get for upvoting themselves 10 times a day at 100%. This would help alleviate some of the low effort postings necessary to extract from ones investment here. Leaving it easier for those of us with the time and understanding that there is much more value in building community around us to find others of like mind.
You are 100% spot on with both your points. Math does not lie.
I ve calculated that for anyone to purely upvote themselves, it would take about about 90 months to extract the amount of blurt that they bought and took off the market in the first place. That figure could be off a bit, as it s a rough estimate.
So mathematically speaking I d love to see Opedia double down on her holdings and upvote herself allday long. It s technically good for Blurt and the the price.
I appreciate the math breakdown. I've been trying to convince everyone how pure investors were great for the chain since the initial push to ban the VTS started.
I can't help but think it numbers. What got me in trouble on Hive in the first place. They had when people think...period. hahaha
I'm always thankful for the witnesses that keep active nodes. I would be in the dark without them. A code that allows no self voting or self voting only for witnesses sounds like a good idea. But one of the problems I have here is that people will still go around the rule by voting with their alt accounts. A 100% self vote on a few word comment makes me cringe. But when I see a farm of accounts that makes me even more sick.
Yes agreed it can be gamed with alts
it's not even a "game"
it's like telling the owners of walmart that they're not allowed to shop at walmart
it makes no sense
not on the witness list - no self voting (alt accounts are not on the witness lists..?)
What is to stop me from opening ten accounts that all vote for my main account. Those are accounts are not self-voting but it still has the same effect because they are all operated by one owner.
You're correct.....lol....bugger.....(I knew there was a reason I hate dealing with techy issues...)....
One thing is for sure - creating incentive's for narcissistic behavior with disincentive's for ethical behavior - is a bug, not a feature.
...unless you're a narcissistic socialist who wants to enrich themselves with minimal effort, riding on the coattails of those that do put in the effort..
It ain't me... but you have described some that I have run into from time to time.
nobody "deserves" a vote more than anyone else
AND
more importantly
who the fuck cares who you vote for ?
Interesting question
Logic would say the user receiving the vote would care the most about who I vote for. After that I don't think anyone really cares where my 20 Blurts are going.
the weird thing here, just like on hive, is that the more people vote, the less each vote is worth
the exact same thing happens with "real-money" the more people spend, the less each $$$ is worth
but somehow this universal fact makes (some) people think they can demand control over how other people choose to spend their $$$
I’m in the middle with self voting. I think the point of a free market is people use it within their own moral compass and that seems to be different for everyone. Personally I don’t mind the occasional self upvote, maybe someone put a lot of time into a post and it didn’t really get rewarded or they want to gain some extra tokens to run projects etc, where do charity accounts fall too? For me it’s balance. Is the person also giving value as well as to themselves. I personally do not like the way Opidia votes and have stated this before because I see zero support of other posts rly outside of maybe megadrive and marky mark and that’s of course cause they can give a big upvote and can get something out of it. Waiting for a few days to upvote all your own comments even one word comments doesn’t rly fit with what I think is moral fair usage. Having said that whilst a platform is free it’s not wrong as such we just choose not to upvote these people. I do think it’s important to look at someone’s behaviour towards the community before upvoting posts and seeing if it’s in alignment with what you consider good ethics but of course a lot of people don’t have time to do that. I don’t see anything wrong with making posts to highlight certain behaviours as some ppl just don’t have time or don’t even know how to look for this stuff. It’s then up to ppl if they care or not. I understand what’s @practicalthought says in that they have added stake. Maybe someone should make a post helping people find out who is doing the most self voting etc etc then rather than it be considered wrong or bad ppl can choose to avoid those accounts if they don’t like it. I definitely wouldn’t upvote someone who was doing 80 percent self upvotes for example. 30 percent I would.
Some people dislike very much, it seems...mega being one of them -I'm going on'the naughty list' apparently ...
Yup. Any changes limiting his one can use own stake is a horrible idea. Agreed the people can choose to skip supporting that post if they don’t like how the creator self voted. That’s the solution. Anything else gives me centralized crush growth vibes
I've heard people say upvoting is fine here because there is no system in place to stop it happening - I find it utterly bizarre that you CAN do it, but you are only given a moral imperative to NOT do it, rather than coding that disallows it, which would be super easy.
I'm new to Blurt, and some days I scroll by posts and seriously find nothing that I find personally worth upvoting. So heck, why not use the vote on myself, if that's the case? But i've done so with such feelings of guilt and looking over my shoulder, ahah - and I certainly don't want to be SHAMED for it - so perhaps I'll leave the self votes off and vote people for their shitty memes instead.
Please don't have a go at me for being honest.
:P
Try and follow people through comments and people you like I find a lot of good stuff on blurt but more by finding people personally than on the feed.
Yeah I've been trying to do that. It's harder as it's a little more primitively built than what I'm used to on Peakd ... I realise how important the tag sorting and community systems are. Hopefully that'll happen here too, not communities per se, but better search functions.
Argh I liked your comment by accident and sabotaged getting myself back to 100 percent lol
Supposedly communities is already inbuilt as was there at the time of mirroring I have no idea why blurt haven’t turned them on? Maybe @megadrive has the answer.
It's your property (your stake). It's no one elses business how you use your property. None of us are entitled to a share of your property, if you choose to share it that is from your good nature, not some claim any of us have on your property.
YEP
Thanks. If you know me at all, you know I share it around a lot, so I don't think I have much to feel guilty about :) - anyway, that'd be my problem anyway!
While I don't know you well, your energy exudes a strong sense of understanding that caring for others is caring for oneself. :)
What a lovely thing to say. 💚💚
lolol - perish the thought!
(I tend to have a go at people being dishonest).... lol
I ain't judging you/people, who use the system as coded.
I'm illustrating the logical disconnect between obvious abusers of as system (because they can), and how it encourages narcissistic behavior, but discourages moral behavior and free market principles.
....which seems like a very weird system to have coded in(if you ask me) ...
what is your "moral theory" that makes "self-voting" teh evilzz ?
It's about distorting (interfering with), the economic functions of a free market.
That's it.
a FREE-MARKET allows anyone to spend their money in any way they wish
....next statement - 'my specialty is stating the bleedin' obvious' ?'.....you don't sound like the logic zombie I remember.
i can't even be arsed replying to your other comment...
this is a purely voluntary interaction
do as thou wilt
EXACTLY
Well I say upvoting your own post is fine, but upvoting your comments look bad. But still, as we respect financial freedom, one has the right to use his/her tokens to vote.
This is more of a public side understanding than us blocking the functionality.
But if the still community thinks it's a big issue, We can think of disabling self vote on comments.
I think (I know, I'm a broken record on this) it's a property rights issue and if someone wants to use their property in such ways that is their prerogative. Coding to block comment voting would just force self voters to write 10 posts instead. I think if we all (and I know you aren't the one bringing this up, just saying) worried about our own property and stopped worrying about someone elses property none of this is an issue. I appreciate greatly the many stands the foundation has taken on this issue, as it must get tiring. It tires me commenting on it so often as it keeps popping up between the VTS and self voting.
Yes, whenever we talk of things, the same issues arise.
the only reason i even moved to blurt was because i am disgusted with the hive oligarchy constantly complaining about HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO VOTE
JUST LET PEOPLE VOTE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO VOTE
I DON'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR OWN MONEY
OPIDIA HAS MORE THAN 800,000 BLURT
WHY DO WE WANT TO RUN THEM OFF THE PLATFORM ?
Exactly. I welcome all of the investors that wish to come here, and my liking them is not a prerequisite. Investment is a great value here, and if this is a place of free speech and respect of property then it is for all, not just those we like.
perfecto
You can disable but then it can be gamed by voting with an alt, so those who are savvy can do so and the common person cannot so creates a class distinction based on knowledge of the system.
Yes, when people depend on tech more than their own morale, this happens. And if one door is blocked, many new open
Not only it makes a distinction between users based on their knowledge of the system, but also on their willingness (or not) to "game" the system.
Some users won't even think about creating alts for voting. They lack the knowledge.
Other users know that they could create alts to vote on their main account's comments, but won't be doing that for a huge myriad of reasons. They have the knowledge, but don't want to jump through the hoops to make more money.
And, finally, the last group know how to game the system and are willing to game the system. And this last group will be the one being rewarded, as they'll still vote themselves and will harvest more reward than the first two groups. And this is wrong.
the only reason i even moved to blurt was because i am disgusted with the hive oligarchy constantly complaining about HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO VOTE
JUST LET PEOPLE VOTE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO VOTE
I DON'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR OWN MONEY
OPIDIA HAS MORE THAN 800,000 BLURT
WHY DO WE WANT TO RUN THEM OFF THE PLATFORM ?
the only reason i even moved to blurt was because i am disgusted with the hive oligarchy constantly complaining about HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO VOTE
JUST LET PEOPLE VOTE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO VOTE
I DON'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR OWN MONEY
OPIDIA HAS MORE THAN 800,000 BLURT
WHY DO WE WANT TO RUN THEM OFF THE PLATFORM ?
I understand what you mean, but tech needs to be downstream from culture....and a tech that rewards selfish behaviors is not a solid foundation for growth - nor does it give a positive signal (culture) to those who see other users with narcissistic behaviors, being greatly rewarded....
First of all, yes tech is meant to do things.
But self vote does not relate with culture or narcissist.
So before you say anything more regards to this, I say I am fed up now.
Why everytime mixing things.
Self vote means just voting on own content, does not matter what the content. But I always see the things mixed up.
I know your bad experience with hive, but that does not mean you keep on doing things, and saying like this.
Thanks for your response....
I don’t think any tech can fix anything if people want to they will find a way to game the system. It’s people that need to change and learn to be more of a community... tech can’t do that. I think megadrive is right it just ends up wifh technically competent ppl gaming the system.
Well, it seems that my freespeech is going to put me on the naughty list (and not earn any longer on Blurt - according to megadrive).... if this is allowed - and you (we) have no option. ie powerless - then it's no different than steem or hive...sad but true...
I'll be doing a full post later, in response to megadrives comments.
This is beyond ridiculous - from a practical, philosophical, ethical or moral standpoint.
It's an exercise in power over those who say things that 'hurt the fweelings' of others.
An exercise in trying to control others freedom of expression.
GREAT JOB RUNNING OFF PEOPLE WITH 800,000 BLURT
I'll treat this comment with the derision it deserves.
the only reason i even moved to blurt was because i am disgusted with the hive oligarchy constantly complaining about HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO VOTE
JUST LET PEOPLE VOTE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO VOTE
I DON'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR OWN MONEY
OPIDIA HAS MORE THAN 800,000 BLURT
WHY DO WE WANT TO RUN THEM OFF THE PLATFORM ?
Personally I agree but I also agree ppl can have an opinion on it, those that don’t mind various behaviours will continue to vote for that person people who don’t like it will stop. It’s a free market on opinions and upvotes right now. People are free to say they don’t like it and stop voting for someone who’s behaviours they don’t like but they can’t take away money others have given in support.
exactly
the only reason i even moved to blurt was because i am disgusted with the hive oligarchy constantly complaining about HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO VOTE
JUST LET PEOPLE VOTE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO VOTE
I DON'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR OWN MONEY
OPIDIA HAS MORE THAN 800,000 BLURT
WHY DO WE WANT TO RUN THEM OFF THE PLATFORM ?
I never realized that you viewed the validity of people as 'more' or 'less', depending on their stake size.
Choosing to engage in a dynamic that distorts free market economics is freely available to do here.
It doesn't make it a good idea.
you obviously don't understand what a "free-market" entails
the only reason i even moved to blurt was because i am disgusted with the hive oligarchy constantly complaining about HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO VOTE
JUST LET PEOPLE VOTE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO VOTE
I DON'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR OWN MONEY
OPIDIA HAS MORE THAN 800,000 BLURT
WHY DO WE WANT TO RUN THEM OFF THE PLATFORM ?
Some say that they upvote themselves for the work they put in to there post .
Well no one asked for your post ,.. your creating out of free will ( at least i guess most of us do , where i have my doubt's about for example @opidia , i suspect some back ground handlers there ) ,.. so why should you get payed for your post's .
I think what we get true upvotes by others is called reward ,.. Like only when actually working for others , by a contract or agreement under free will ,.. or under control and enslavement ,.. it is that we get payed .
I do think indeed that a witness , running and maintaining a node is allowed to upvote themselves to cover the cost's . Energy prizes are rising , resources getting scarce , it could become most important to Blurt to have secure and healthy node holders .
For us common folk one could say one could upvote one-selves to cover the cost Blurt charges for posting , commenting and voting , like with 1 to 5 % voting power . But knowing it takes only 1 or 2 upvotes from others to cover that ,. it seems no point doing that either .
I have no problem with self-upvoting being blocked for non witness users , or blocked from the comments only ,.. or even tweaked in to a max 5 to 10% voting power self upvote . As in a way it is also good to keep some sort of self vote system ,.. to shift out the narcissist going on a greedy grabbing rampage , that will notice in a while that no one else is voting for their drama . ( because they are so clever )
;-)
I see your points. I just look at it like an ROI and slightly increased APR on ones investment. I believe it s wise to look at blurt as a social community as well as a community of investors looking to get what they feel is a fair return on their time and money spent. I have no problem upvoting myself if I spend an hour making a post. I put nearly 20k into blurt, +an hr making "that"post. Im not here with the mindset of selling anything, im here to get a return on my investment and see that Blurt continues to grow in all the right ways.
If others don t like that perspective and therefore it costs me their up votes than the free market and community will prove my opinion goes against the majority costing me further earnings, and I can then be an example for others of what not to do. Either way the free market wins and sets things straight, I believe we should let the freemarket do what it does best, indirectly voice the opinion of the community.
You can also see the effects of the free market playing out on @opedia's earnings or lack there of. She has clearly turned people off for the reason you state. So in my opinion, you dont need to call her out on anything. The free market has already done it for you.
Also I d like to see more of lucyreloaded, cause it s well thought out...as you know Im a big fan of calling things out, even if it results in putting one own foot in their mouth...which I personally am guilty of with my my shout out to @megadrive post not too long ago.
Another example of the free market at work is @spinbunny. He is clearly doing what he can to get the most out of his inveatment with minimal effort, but the free market is telling him that his strategy really limits his potential earnings...but if he is ok with that I could care less, after all he s sitting on a quarter million blurt. Blurt has nothing to gain by chasing him and his money off the platform. In fact I support what he s doing simply from the perpective of an investor trying to get a return on his money. If he likes making a return on his money in this way, I think we should all encoutage him to buy more! Seriusly, why not? The more he buys the more my upvote is worth to support authors like you.
Anyway Im a big lucy fan! Dont forget it ;) Keep up the highly engaging, fun, thoughtful, and halarious posts.
Cheers, matey...
I'm not gonna sleep with you though - you do know that.... right ? ...lolololol...
Say it ain't so!!! I've got a thing for hot smelly penguin ass ;) hahaha
lololololol
I have received a complaint about you once more.
Please note, everyone on Blurt is free to self vote, I self vote sometimes. There is no economic or blockchain feature to prevent self voting and as such is not prohibited, it is merely a social norm some people carried over from Steem or Hive after being brainwashed.
If you don't value your own works why should others value it? I don't wish to see people on Blurt being targeted or singled out in such a manner, you have clearly created this alt apart from your main lucylin account to target @opidia even though she has mostly kept to herself.
I note your location to show Ophidia Hunter, basically likening her to a snake and saying that you are hunting her. This to me is clear harassment and bullying and I will be recommending your accounts to the wardens to be added to the coal list.
Is that a joke? Who are the wardens (please give me some names) and how to become one?
So you want to disable upvote button for my favorite user? Is this private blockchain? Stop acting like a owner, tell opidia to go fuck herself or teach her how to use mute button.
Self upvoting for witnesses ONLY idea is stupid
Yes self-voting for witnesses only is not a good idea.
Please don't confuse blockchain with frontend, the COAL list does not affect anything at the chain level. Frontends are subjectively operated, and foundation frontends utilise the COAL list at our discretion, the chain remains open, feel free to use other frontends that do not implement COAL.
User rights will not be infringed on foundation frontends under the guise of free speech.
We have discussed this before. Blurt.blog is the face of the blockchain, for most people it will always be the official website of Blurt. This is why adding to COAL should be limited to a minimum, as it is now: spam, farming, but if you start adding people to COAL just because you don't like someone or someone offended your girlfriend, you will lead to the collapse of the blockchain
What do you think about adding to COAL everyone who delegated to upvu? They collect so much rewards from the reward pool that I don't think they deserve the extra upvotes
@megadrive, I agree 100% with @ctime ! If people start being added to this so-called COAL list, we will have the next "downvote button" here on Blurt!!!!
If people have quarrels with one another here on the chain, these are definitely not the business of higher instances here!
I sacrificed my Hive account because "higher instances" had more power with their downvote button. I didn't come here, to see this be repeated again!
I suggest a public announcement to the coal list (has this been done yet?) with exact specifications as to how an account will land on this list i.e. spam, plagiarism, vote missuse etc.
It does if the site operator is subject to the liability of the abusive content allowed to be shown. Also how do we make it a safe place for kids and families?
I understand you, but we have to find a solution, that does not intervene with the rewards here on Blurt. This is our biggest weapon. Marky is trying to use this against us over on Hive, saying our downvote button is the COAL list.
Maybe a "bad behaviour" list? Where it is clearly said, please be careful with these profiles... I personally find, that cutting the rewards is extremely dangerous for the reputation and perception of Blurt...
You don’t. You have a mute button for that or have an #nafv style tag for adult discussion. This is beginning to sound the opposite to free speech which is why everyone is here. Your opinion on what’s acceptable content, is just that your opinion. We all have different ones. Utilise a Nsfv style tag if we are worried about children.
DECENTRALIZED JURY
link skips to 1128 seconds
Interesting approach! 🤙🤔
this is where we should be looking
Completely agree with @ctime this is very dangerous ground and I’m not sure I would feel safe holding investment in a chain that was just kicking ppl off cause they said something they didn’t like.. the whole reason ppl are here is for free speech.
DECENTRALIZED JURY
link skips to 1128 seconds
How about in the honor of decentralization and leaving the power with the people (blurt community) before anyone is added to the coal list a survey post is to be made. The comments can only be yes or no. Then add them up and go with the majority decision. After all, to put somone on the coal list really is no more than a judgment call. It will also relieve the founders of being labled authoritarians by those who dissagree. win-win
Agree @world-travel-pro if this is decentralised for someone to be added to a coal list they should actually be assessed by various people almost like a jury. I mean if we have to even have a list at all it should Be validated like jury service and by a random selection not just a set 5 people.
Spot on!.....as usual ;)
Bad idea, matey....it's inviting behind the scenes corruption.
'Direct democracy is like socialism - look great in theory but only leads to a pile of shite.'
...think the '500 baht, representatives doing the rounds, and local elections - scenario ... same thing..'.
...jungle girl will tell you about how it really works (if you don't already know).
I hear you. I'm just thinking out loud for solutions. What do you suggest be don?...not about your current hot seat which I highly disagree with....but about the authority of placing people on this COAL list.
I think your suggestion on another comment is the best one - let the market decide.
....point out/ put warning sign, on accounts posts (or something) - for plagiarized/spam content etc..- that's it...let the market decide.
Because it will, if left to function.
Until blockchain, I've only ever worked in free markets (in the real world and online), and never had any issues with it - because merit , and not politics, is the metric.
People who do not want free markets ?....They have a reason for that perspective - and it's all negative.
I have zero interest in the mechanics of this stuff, so can't be of much help in that area. (ie. none).
Free market....a term that has vanished from all three graphine blockchains. Time to bring it back.
DECENTRALIZED JURY
link skips to 1128 seconds
DECENTRALIZED JURY
link skips to 1128 seconds
Interesting… or more of a @bitsports style with one comment for yes and one for no. But i fear that it can be gamed with stake or sock puppets
Not if it’s randomly selected accounts. Sure some won’t be active anymore but can still go with the majority from day 200 randomly selected accounts or something.
DECENTRALIZED JURY
link skips to 1128 seconds
DECENTRALIZED JURY
link skips to 1128 seconds
I hope you can read my post later without adopting a defensive position.
Defensive postures leads to intellectual blindness
....I am not your enemy - quite the opposite, in fact...
I'm trying to help the platform (and yourself).
I upvoted you just because you are a funny wanker, if my vote offends let me know, but that witch is also a freeloading thief.
Very subtle 😂
LOL, known him for many years, English humour is dark at times. All good fun.
Yeah a lot of countries don’t get the English humour it’s very dry, sarcastic and offensive I actually love dark humour maybe we have it as a coping mechanism from so many rainy summers haha.
I wish it would rain here, would save me/us having to water gardens, and old lucylins humour cracks me up, he could do stand up comedy with ease.
people are crazy sensitive these days, I think every child should be bought up on spitting images to learn not to take oneself too seriously lol
I agree :-)
I grew up watching this as a child lol
#metoo
🤣
#metoo, now look what you made me join, a victim-hood club 😂
if people want to understand English humour at least pre SJW era they should just go watch spitting images lol
IT IS NOT GOOD FUN !
I OBJECT !!!
I'M HURT, OFFENDED AND.... AND...SOME OTHER STUFF, TOO.....BUT I'M JUST SO TRIGGERED RIGHT NOW MY FINGERS ARE LIKE... LITERALLY.... SHAKING...I CAN'T TYPE !
On a more serious not, I'm apparently going on the 'coal list' (whatever that means), for 'hate speech', 'harassment'. and some other insane shit....
...post coming later.
WAIT! I thought "we" were selling the idea that this is decentralised and free speech?
The thought police hey, even the UK police said they were stopping that last week. The judge n jury.
Who gets to decide regards "'hate speech', 'harassment'. Are they qualified? Who appointed them? What are their qualifications to do so?
I have already seen the comment and yes I know who said it, and it led to bad publicity over on hive. https://hive.blog/hive-167922/@themarkymark/blurt-is-just-weird
Justifiably so IMO and we all have one.
I'm not sure how using your own blog, and never going onto someone theirs - and only ever RESPONDING to, never INITIATING IN, somehow constitutes "harrasment and bullying"...weird, that.
Poor thought process and weak positions , means 'they' will try any old bollocks to make their narrative become a truth.
Postmodern word salad bullshit, at it's finest.
...there you go...allow me to retort...
https://blurt.blog/blurtlife/@lucyreloaded/well-allow-me-to-retort-do-i-need-to-report-a-bully-sarc
If was on steem/hive - I'd be reaming blurt 'a new one' with this debacle...
Better sooner, rather than later, tho...
I must admit to be an interested spectator with regards to how this discourse goes, as it determines long term investment "or not" on my part.
You do realize this makes you - officially - a 2 stroke fetishist, voyeur ! ...lmao
Glad to hear that...
LOL, known him since steemit days, he is my buddy in Thailand, where I used to live also, but now I do not, no drama here, just messing with an old buddy, cos we can.
The internet as a place of representation for ethics and morality is already questionable in and of itself or leads away from reality, in my view. I consider it difficult or even impossible to try to make agreement on questions of morality and ethics a convention on the net. People fight each other on virtual ground and most of those who have not shifted their main lifestyle to the net world might not care.
But if already in the real, non-representative world no agreement can be reached on what is ethically and morally right or wrong, then you will certainly not be able to do it in the digital world, because here the lack of relationships has multiplied many times over.
Take the two of us, for example. We have no relationship to each other, neither of a business nor of a private nature. We meet in a publicly accessible space. Neither obligation nor friendship binds us; neither you nor I can demand attention or complain effectively if given too much or too little. It would have no particular effect on my emotional or financial or other life.
For my part, I wouldn't have it any other way. Because if I wanted the conflict about what is moral or immoral to extend to the digital space, then I would at the same time enter into a very large dependency with this space, for example, by limiting my primary or even only financial possibilities, my only social encounters to this internet (blockchains, "social networks" etc.).
If someone in my family/friends falls ill or dies or is born, then it is not my "social media contacts" who are a support to me in this, just as the other way round. They are too far away, I don't work with them, I don't even know their real name, etc. In such an anonymous environment, it's impossible for them to be a support to me. In this context, one cannot speak of real friendship at all. At the most, one can speak of business relationships.
I speak out quite clearly against such a life, against a dominant representation of my existence as an internet person.
It seems to me that you are speaking out in favour of it because, as it looks to me, you seem to regard your earning potential here as primary and express your social needs frequently.
Your expressive resistance to the powers that be doesn't seem to take into account that in the digital, relationship-detached world, you are stuck in an endless loop of debate and gossip that knows no bedtimes and no end. In what quality and intensity can you actually discuss in your physical environment the topics that you address on the blockchain? For my part, I think that such never-ending digital talk is definitely wanted and welcomed by the ruling powers.
The more keyboard time the better.
Will people find spaces for a non digital life, or, as little as possible?
DECENTRALIZED JURY
link skips to 1128 seconds
I watched it but cannot make any sense of it. Also due to understand his colored english accent which I have a hard time to follow.
Can you give me some short summary and the essence of what is being said?
they created a blockchain based system where participants are randomly selected to participate in a jury system
in order to test the system, they created a contest with a huge prize pool (something like 20 ethereum or something)
the challenge was to submit a picture of a cat and get a jury to answer "YES" to the question "is this a doge ?"
the test of the decentralized - - randomized jury system - - and appeal system - - was extremely successful
i believe this is the best possible jury system for moderation
I still don't get it.
Sorry.
steemcleaners / hivewatchers / blurtwardens all CLAIM to represent "the will of the community"
but have a decidedly "guilty until proven innocent" policy with no truly neutral appeals process
a DECENTRALIZED JURY (and transparent appeals system) system solves this problem
if someone thinks content should be removed or an account should be sanctioned in some way
then a panel of jurors would be (randomly) selected who would either vote "YES" or "NO"
this would represent "the will of the community" better than any "self-appointed" vigilantes
Would you say that they also could opt for "dismissing" a case out of perceived irrelevance? Would you elaborate on that idea and propose it?
i am unfamiliar with the proposal procedure
the idea of a decentralized jury seems so obviously "good" that it is difficult for me to imagine anyone not recognizing it (once they hear of it)
the following is just an example
a dispute resolution system where any transaction (post) can only be disputed (flagged) once, and when a transaction is disputed, 1000 random users are notified and if they fail to respond within a set time frame (say, 48 hours) their option is forfeit and it goes to another random user.
A transaction can only be canceled (removed) if a 60% consensus is reached by the randomized jury.
If there is no 60% consensus (even if it's a 599 to 401 split) then the transaction remains unaffected.
There is no penalty for simply being disputed, there is no "held pending trial" status.
There is a small incentive paid to jury members for their participation and there is a small added bonus for voting with the majority iff there is a 60% majority (and the votes are hidden from all participants until voting is completed).
In my opinion This is a horrible idea. It’s either decentralized free market or it’s not. If people choose when they see self upvotes they can avoid upvoting it. Anything further is just more centralized limits to what one does with there own stake.