I hope you take time to publish a response to this. It is clear you care about @steem and I would be interested if this article and other comments has swayed your opinion.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I hope you take time to publish a response to this. It is clear you care about @steem and I would be interested if this article and other comments has swayed your opinion.
Sure. Especially since you requested it. I want to think about it a bit before I post, but I definitely will. It was a lot of good food for thought. I will say now it has potentially addressed most of my concerns. If we didn't have cases where some very powerful couldn't smash down those for subjective/opinion reasons to the degree we have it now I think it would be less of an issue. So perhaps if as this article seems to indicate we really need a down vote as the opposing force dictated by game theory that the real issue is not the down vote, but how it can manifest with the disparity of power. I am also not in favor of equalizing power, people get their steem power by purchase and/or activity and I believe this is a beautiful thing. So I do not want to neuter those with power. I would like to find out some way to perhaps reduce the impact such a down vote can have on people. I do care, otherwise I'd not be so passionate about something that hasn't even happened to me personally. I can tell you care about it as well. I will write a response. Perhaps later today, if not within the next day or so. I want to mentally digest what is in that other article first. :)
I do have a question for you that I just thought of that I really need to perhaps get a grasp on in terms of "Game Theory".
It is said that the down vote is a necessary opposite to the up vote.
Where is this when I walk into a book store?
As I stated, I do not walk around putting red check marks on all of the books on sports, or knitting, or things I have no interest on. I walk to the things I am interested in, I buy them, and I walk out.
About the only way I see something like this might manifest is when I ask someone "Is this any good?"
So this necessary opposite doesn't always seem to manifest as it seems the down vote does.
Is this the case?
EDIT: Though I do realize Gaming the system is still an issue.
The red checkmark (cost) is in unsold books leading to the publisher taking losses.
If people had to "pay to post" then there would also be less abuse.
The cost to abusing STEEM is almost nothing compared to the profits. The profit margin in publishing is much smaller and riskier.
That makes sense. Thanks for the quick response. Back to thinking I go.
I'm not sure that analogy fits @dantheman. I see the example as an analogy of a system that only provides upvotes without (explicit) downvotes. To infer that not buying a book is a downvote is like saying not upvoting in steemit is a downvote. If that were true game theory balance would exist and there would be no need for Steemit's downvoting.
I thought this article and the majority of comments were very well articulated and this is one of the best threads I've read about the Steemit governance model. Also very glad to see your active participation and payment of attention given to it.
Namaste!
I have written a post. Not everything has settled, but I thought I should at least post something while the ideas are fresh.