Luckily, authors who have the funds CAN directly reward productive comments even with the current system.
It just comes down to authors actually doing it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Luckily, authors who have the funds CAN directly reward productive comments even with the current system.
It just comes down to authors actually doing it.
Hello torquewrench!
The following is not to criticize your remark, if for no other reason that it is correct!
However, if we leave the situation as it is now then here is what we are accepting:
The second point is vastly more important than the first one. Why should we agree (even implicitly ) to decide that wealth and rewards in this community are to be defined just in terms of Steem Dollars and Steem Power and allocation of same? That's a question we need to discuss.
If we can move to a much broader and more helpful definition, we lay the groundwork for designating a special review process by authors mentioned in my first point.
Why would I want a computerized process to determine how I review and reward comments?
I might just be special, but I'm completely capable of reviewing comments and rewarding users without having to have a "designated process", and most other users are capable too!
Having a "designated process" of rewarding users removes the spontaneous, HUMAN aspect of the reward for both the giver and the reciever.
A "designated process" is easily automated, which decreases the value also.
We are in an age where a handi programmer could (theoretically ) automate the generation of a post and automate a reply to a post.
If a set, "designated procedure" for rewarding a comment is implemented, it could be automated too.
At that point, why have humans in the loop at all?
Social media is only "social" if humans are interacting with the inquisitive insight, emotional caring, creative thoughtfulness and limited resources.
Now if you could find a way to allow users to send chocolate chip cookies through the steemit.com platform, that would be an awesome reward!
Apologies torquewrench; because my comment was not adequately clear. I had no computerized process in mind. I certainly should have defined what I meant by “designated process”.
At present we have something that we could call “the human-oriented protocol”, which tells us humans what to do under certain circumstances. I’m saying that the human-oriented protocol should be changed to reflect a principle that I have not seen expressed here in my reading of posts. (This doesn’t mean that someone else has not expressed in -- just that I haven’t seen it.)
The principle can be stated as follows. The added value that derives from a post has two elements: (a) the post itself and (b) a combination of the quantity and quality of the comments (discussion) elicited by the post. I think of (a) and (b) as comprising an information package.
So the author would need to wait some good time after the discussion seems to have died down to make an assessment of how much added value has come from the second component of the package, and who was/were the key contributor(s) to that added value.
And, please excuse the repetition, the rewards that the author would assign at the time of doing that assessment would be more or less independent of the current system that comprises Steem dollars and the current rules for their allocation.
So the principles that you have advocated where appropriate human judgment is an integral part of the assessment is fully supported by what I’m advocating.
Where I suspect our positions are radically different is that I am advocating that major surgery be applied to the present system.
Cheers!
Thanks for clarifying!
I don't think surgery is necessarily required for what you are suggesting.
Essentially, you're looking at a time filter (author date +14, for example), an interface for the author to utilize for re-reading a comment/reply, and a transaction with a memo.
Should be easy enough as an add-on page...