You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Whales: You Have Some Flagging to Do

in #abuse7 years ago

Interesting idea. What if they did something like that, where you have to be on this platform for X period of time, and post X times/get X number of votes, etc. before the "trust factor" increases? They could also tie this to reputation as well. The higher the rep, the higher the percentage you get. For example, 0 rep would bring in 0% of the earnings, 10 rep 25%, 20 rep 50%, 30 rep 75%, and 40+ rep 100%.

The only issue here, would be that people like berniesanders could still mass flag someone to kill their rep, especially if their reputation is already not terribly high. They could also mass vote an account up to boost the rep. It isn't a perfect solution, but it may slow things down.

Furthermore, what about limiting the number of accounts one person can have? I know this would be difficult to do, but they could potentially monitor suspected individuals, put them on probation if an issue is found, and ban/delete their account if they are found to be directly violating the rules in order to scam the platform. If nothing else, this would probably force people like bernie to be more careful and less brazen in his attacks. Perhaps some of the people guilty of doing this would be dumb enough to make it obvious, and get booted.

Just my thoughts, what do you all think?

Sort:  

Reputations scores can only be adjusted by people with higher reputation scores. That means low rep accounts can raise or lower higher reputation accounts.

Ok, I knew you had to have higher reputation to lower someone else's with a flag. You are saying it works the same for raising it? Only higher reputations upvoting you can raise your own?

As far as I understand, lower reputations can't raise the reputation of higher accounts.

In the post of @arcange, he shows that there are two rules to reputation:

// Rule #1: Must have non-negative reputation to affect another user's reputation
// Rule #2: If you are downvoting another user, you must have more reputation than them to impact their reputation

Rule #1 implies, that if you are upvoting a post of somebody with a higher reputation than you have, this has an effect as long as you have a positive reputation, with the impact depending on a) your reputation and b) your voting power. If this wasn't the case:

  1. How could anybody at the inception of Steemit get a reputation higher than 25 (as all start with this value)?
  2. How could someone with the highest reputation increase his reputation at all?