HF21 + Anti-Retaliatory Downvoting System (Proposal) = A Functional STEEM/Steemit

in #newsteem2 years ago (edited)

Over the past two years, I’ve written a LOT about the systemic dysfunctions of our beloved blockchain, stating that said dysfunctions were causing massive negative feedback loops that would, inevitably, destroy the blockchain if not remedied. I’ve taken a lot of grief for such commentary but with STEEM at $0.16, a ranking of 79th in terms of crypto market cap and a dramatically decreased Active User Base, it would seem as if the market concurs.

HardFork 21 had some roll-out issues (necessitating HardFork 22 to clean up the mess) but putting that aside, did it accomplish anything? Did it do anything to remedy the crippling systemic dysfunctions about which I, and so many others, have written?

Raison d'être


This is the USS Gerald R. Ford. At more than $13 billion, it is, by far, the most expensive, sophisticated and potent weapon ever created. Combined with the might of its Battle Group of submarines, frigates and destroyers, its ability to project power exceeds that of almost every nation on Earth. With a crew of approximately 5,000, the aircraft carrier is, quite literally, a floating city. And, as with all cities, there are innumerable component parts organized into a highly integrated whole. Of those component parts, however, some are more critical than others.

For example, the USS Gerald R. Ford has many dozens of bathrooms. Each of those bathrooms was deemed important and hence included in the ship's design. If one of those bathrooms were to become dysfunctional, it would create problems. But the problems it would create would not be catastrophic. The people for whom its use was intended would compensate by using another. A pain in the ass, but not a pain in the chest.

But consider if the USS Gerald R. Ford's aircraft launch catapult were to fail. Without it one couldn't launch aircraft. If it were to become dysfunctional, the USS Gerald R. Ford’s raison d’etre, along with that of its entire protective flotilla, would be completely negated.

Get this one thing wrong and nothing else matters.

In past articles, I've argued that STEEM is the navy, Steemit is the aircraft carrier and the blockchain's other DApps are the support ships in Steemit's flotilla. And, I’ve argued that Steemit’s raison d’etre, its Central Premise, is: "Content Shall Be Compensated Commensurate With Its Quality." 

Further, I’ve argued that to achieve said objective, there had to be rules prohibiting game-rigging (vote-buying/selling and other voting manipulations), a pragmatic mechanism for enforcing said rules and a highly functional curation system. Absent a defense of the Central Premise, I argued, would cause STEEM/Steemit to wither and die.

HardFork 21

The full effects of the HardFork will not be known for some time. People are still scrambling to understand what it all means and how best to adapt to the new realities. But there are some early indicators that, to be frank, are extremely positive. 

If a picture's worth a thousand words, then this one about bidbot usage speaks volumes:

Source: @exyle

Whales and Orcas own approximately 85% of the blockchain’s SP. SP is the system’s internal capital and how it’s distributed dramatically determines how the blockchain operates. Prior to HF21, the vast majority of that internal capital was leased to bidbots in an effort to generate Passive Income. But vote-buying/selling, by definition, is the antithesis of a merit-based compensation system … in essence, a castration of the curation process and hence … the blockchain’s launch catapult.

But all of a sudden, post HF21 ... everyone’s into curation! (It brings tears to my eyes.) Manual or automated, it would seem as if a plurality of Whales and Orcas want in on the game. And bidbot usage ... well, its suddenly painted a target on your back. 

To be honest, I would have gone about things differently - HF21 was not what I would have considered the optimal solution. And keep in mind, we don’t yet know what the final picture will look like ... the instinct to be dastardly seems hard-wired into the DNA of more than a few of our fellows.

That said, one does not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Despite the transition pains, this is by far the most encouraging development I’ve witnessed in the past two years.

But ... There's A Hole In The Hull

The launch catapult is not the only critical system aboard an aircraft carrier. Broken propulsion, for example, would bring operations to a halt just as quickly. As would a gaping hole in the hull.

The Anti-Abuse modifications built into HF21 - that is, the allocation of non-VP-depleting downvotes … is not sustainable.

Already, the retaliation downvoting has commenced. Realistically, Whale Wars are exhausting for the enforcers (the Good Guys), like trying to maintain a sprint for the length of a marathon. And Minnows downvoting Whales ... is the very definition of blockchain suicide.

What's Old Is New Again

A year and a half ago, I published a Proposal about how to deal with Abusive Downvoting. I think it merits a revisit. 

In a nutshell: Establish a Jury Adjudication System by which Abusive Downvotes could be nullified: 

  1. Mary believes Joe’s post ought to be downvoted for an "Offensive Behavior" (that term defined and approved by the community … see hypothetical “Downvote Justification Form” below).
  2. So, Mary downvotes Joe’s post, clicking the appropriate box and providing a rationale where required.
  3. Downvote Justification Form

  4. Joe is livid, believing the downvote is inappropriate or in retaliation for a downvote he made against one of Mary's posts a couple of days prior.
  5. So, Joe clicks the newly created "Appeals Button."
  6. Joe’s downvoted post, and its corresponding Downvote Justification Form, are sent to three Steemians (Jurors) chosen randomly from amongst "then-online users" and possessing Rep Scores in excess of 40 (so they’re not complete newbies). Both Mary and Joe’s usernames are blocked out to try to ensure impartiality. The identities of the Jurors remain confidential (thereby preventing retaliation by either Joe or Mary) as the allocation system is placed on a non-publicly viewable sidechain or an independent off-blockchain system analogous to the way the blockchain interacts with Discord.
  7. The three Jurors read Joe’s downvoted post (or comment/reply). They would then have two choices about how to proceed:

  • Support the Downvote, in which case the downvote stands ... BUT the downvote gets doubled. The reason for the doubling is that Joe wasted 3 Steemians time with a spurious appeal when he knew that he was guilty. This is necessary as, without it, every downvote would be appealed.
  • Overturn the Downvote, in which case the downvote is deleted from Joe’s post ... and is instead applied to Mary’s, adversely affecting her next post(s) until the full amount of the downvote has been used up. This is to punish Mary for downvoting a post without legitimate cause. 

Note: The system would enact whichever action received at least two Jurors votes.

Note: A quick resolution of disputes is vital. To ensure that all do their civic jury duty, designated Jurors who do not respond within an allotted period of time (say 72 hours of Jury Notification) would face a penalty (perhaps a fine or a suspension of posting abilities for 24 hours).

If the Jury Adjudication System was implemented, we would then have a system in which:

  1. The vast majority of SP was being used for the purpose for which it was intended, the curation of content based upon quality; and
  2. A quick and pragmatic way of eliminating abusive behavior, including “retaliatory downvoting” by abusive Whales attempting to protect their ability to game the system via intimidation.

Think about that for a moment.

Those two things, taken together, eliminate the MOST DAMAGING of the blockchain’s systemic problems. And, taken together, they lay the foundation for a host of positive feedback loops in which the effects of one action force-multiplies the effects of another (it is these indirect and emergent effects that will send the price of STEEM skyward).

In Sum

The turn towards curation and the ability to prevent blatantly abusive behavior would not solve all the blockchain’s problems. Personally, I could rattle off a dozen other shortcomings in need of a fix. But none of those other shortcomings are CRITICAL to the system’s very survival.

None of those other shortcomings jeopardize the Central Premise that: "Content Shall Be Compensated Commensurate With Its Quality."

Backed up toilets ... don’t sink ships.


Quill


All images are linked to source, are QuillFire originals or are modifications of images in the public domain. Videos and images may also be parodies of original works, therefore relying upon applicable exemptions from copyright. 


You guys know the QuillDrill. Be verbose ... but articulate.

And remember ...

Go Love a Starving Poet

For God's sake ... they're starving!




Sort:  

This is an interesting idea (the jury one...)... the downvoting is all good and fine, but as you point out... most people don't see it as the market finding the appropriate price for a not yet rewarded post... but more as a theft of "entitled" rewards.... and then the cranky retaliations break out...

Still, HF21/22 has seen some good changes... but this critical one (fear of retaliation) is a big one... it is the same reason that I report directly problematic posts to @steemcleaners rather than doing something about it directly...

... over 40 REP... it might need to much much higher... I have caught plagarists with Reps in the 60s...

@bengy,

Hey mate.

The idea behind picking Jurors is "randomness" and the Rep Score (whatever it is) merely to ensure that whoever they are, they have some idea about how Steemit is supposed to work.

No matter the Rep Score, one could get a "Bad Juror" ... but that's always a risk, even in real world courtrooms. It is unlikely, however, that one would randomly get two Bad Jurors (and decisions would be based upon 2 out of 3 Juror votes).

The idea of "stake-weighted immunity to justice" is not defensible. There have to be some behaviors that are treated the same irrespective of wallet size. Rules, without the ability to pragmatically enforce them (against everyone), is naught but hot air.

Quill

Yes, but I would say that three is a touch too low for me... Another thing would be the jurors would need to be public, this might also lead to the similar retribution (not saying that the juror idea is bad...) situation.

@bengy,

My proposal would be to use a sidechain if it could be made non-publicly accessible or, if it could not, an off-blockchain computer system (just as Discord is an off-blockchain system that interacts with STEEM).

Confidentiality, of course, is necessary as, in its absence, the retaliatory downvoting would simply spread to the Jurors negating the whole point of the exercise.

Quill

League of legends had a similar sounding tribunal system to help deal with reports of toxic and abusive players. From memory, the jurors (around 10? For each case) were anonymous to each other, and cast anonymous votes. There was a small reward if your vote tallied with the others and nothing if it didn't. I think this mechanism would be better than a punishment incentive for not taking part...

It would maybe form a juror class of accounts... In the same way that steemcleaners reporting is highly profitable for new and small accounts with the direct proportional benefit dropping off as your account gets bigger...

@bengy,

Wonderful ideas and insights. I'm agnostic to the details and would highly encourage others to profffer improvements to the core idea. As long as we end up with a relatively pragmatic enforcement system that addresses the problem of coercive downvoting tactics, I'm all in.

Quill

This is my previous response that has still to be rebuked or acknowledged.

You propose that a jury of n number of people vote. Yet the problem is that this takes time, this takes mental energy, and mental capacity, this requires that the voters are peers, or at the very least speak the same language, this requires that we sacrifice and expose people to all kinds of content that could disturb them. Naturally, people will opt out. That will make it so that the honest few are competing with the numerous alts of the ones who gain most, the sadist and the troll, by subverting the panel. You still haven't prevented it, or done anything to slow it down, just gave the option to reverse a flag or punish twice, a bot account will revel at the thought that it can cause so much distress in so many parties simply by downvoting , and ultimately the backlog of trials will grind to a halt because to coordinate such a system you have to find active people.. You haven't really considered that the system of jurors will be vulnerable to trolls of all kinds, as anonymity and the power to punish free of consequences will sound like free beer to them, and the few that join this, they will be taxed in both time and in considering/ judging, and they cannot be directly compensated as that would be gamed by a whole other group of people, and then the anonymity of the jurors would oy be a matter of queering the chain for such transactions, detailing how much and where to it's going.

The cost is robustness in this case, as a bad actor, regardless of the costs, will abuse the system and the downvotes, and they aren't prevented either way.

Loading...

I wasn't sure about HF21, to be honest. My last post, written yesterday, was my first post after the rollout. I'm quite surprised that it made $2.35 on the first 16 votes. It has since gone over $3, my first post to do so for a very long time (I don't remember when).

On the jury duty, I made a similar recommendation on Narrative long ago. Abusive downvoting is awful over there. Any time money is at stake, people will find a way to cheat. Downvoting is an easy thing to do, and everyone knows if you downvote the next guy, that increases your own rewards. The jury system is a good idea, but I'd use more than three jurors. I'd use 24 and make the decision contingent upon a 2/3 supermajority. All the jurors should be selected randomly and are anonymous. They can't communicate with each other during the adjudication process and each arrives at their own conclusion based on the evidence presented.

@blockurator,

Hey Block.

Good to see you around and congrats on the Inside Bitcoin editorial position.

24 Jurors ... that strikes me as being a very large Jury Pool to decide something like a downvote that is, at most, likely to be worth a couple of dollars (and more likely pennies). It would obligate people to spend eight times the amount of time on Juries as in my proposal. Is there a rationale for such a number that I'm missing? Even the Supreme Court only has nine.

In any event, the number of Jurors is a detail. It's the overall idea that needs to be first accepted and we seem to be in accord on all the broad strokes.

I didn't know downvoting, and seemingly downvote abuse, was such a thing on Narrative. Well, I guess that's why I have you. :-)

Quill

24 may be too much for a downvoting decision. I think more than 3 because it adds more voices to the decision and leaves less room for gaming the outcome. Random selection and anonymous jurors would do much, but if I'm adjudicating your downvote of @prydefoltz and like her more than I like you, I may decide it's more important to vote with my affinity for prydefoltz rather than on the side of justice. If one other juror did that and there are only three, the majority is on the side of injustice. The more jurors you have, the less likely such thinking will rule the adjudication process.

@blockurator,

Well, we both know that if I was downvoting @prydefoltz, she would bloody well deserve it, wouldn't she? Block ... she wrote a poem about Brussels Sprouts!!!

OK, I just made that up. But now that I've planted the seed ... you just wait and see ... an "Ode to B.S." (No smart remarks about the odds-on-favorite to actually write a poem so entitled.)

Recall that the usernames of both the Poster and the Downvoter would be erased so as to increase impartiality. Such precaution is not, of course, foolproof. I sign off all my posts with, "Quill." Moreover, each of my posts ends with a Power House Creatives logo so even if a Juror wasn't biased in favor of me personally, he/she might be biased in favor of my group.

Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We will always have to accept something less than perfection. Hopefully, such hypothetical Juror bias would be offset by the impartiality of the other Jurors. Respecting the number of Jurors, I'd be more than happy to leave that to the collective judgement of the community ... whatever everyone decides.

Here's my thought: Once such a system is in place, it won't get used much.

Instantly, all the blatantly abusive Posters AND Downvoters will realize the jig is up. If they engage in shenanigans, they'll get called on it and attempting to intimidate their way to immunity, via retaliatory downvoting, will be self-harming ... by doubling the downvote or bouncing it back to themselves, as the case may be.

95% is, by definition, imperfect ... but it still gets you into Harvard.

Quill

Here's my thought: Once such a system is in place, it won't get used much.

You overestimate the goodness of man. But I missed the anonymization of the poster and downvoter. My apologies.

Okay, so I may have to be the first to write the Ode to B.S. In your honor.

Backed up toilets ... don’t sink ships.

Depends if the toilet has flooded due to someone dropping an "immovable object" causing the excess pooey water to overflow and sink the ship ... imagine that eesh!

But it sounds like you're trying to bring in a kind of IOTA "tangle" side chain to steem where you have 3 people to verify the transaction (appeal to rebuke the downvote) before it gets actioned.

The only issue I can see with your idea of punishing the jurors who don't get back is... what if they are on holiday or absent soon after they were spotted online with your process? They are going to be punished for living offline? Seems a little harsh.

However, as we are entering a new paradigm where the users of a social media in web 3.0 can actually OWN A STAKE in the platform they use (unlike FB and Twitter), then it should really be up to the users on how they want the the community to behave.

It's why I've bought up some stake since the changes as I am seeing a huge change in the community towards bid bots (YESSSS!!) and that graph honestly brought a huge smile to my face. I've jumped on a bit of the downvoting as well and offered some people explanations about how they can better their content so bid bots are not used again.

There's of course a long way to go still and I hope that the attitude towards content curation continues moving towards the original idea of "Content should be paid depending on quality and value" - and it will.

That notion aside, you also have the fact that steem is a damn fast blockchain (3 seconds) and feeless, open source and can have any developer come on and build something. Magic.

They just need to employ someone who has some UX ability for the steemit front end because it looks like some one designed it whilst they were dropping an immovable object on a ship's toilet ;)

@nickyhavey,

The only issue I can see with your idea of punishing the jurors who don't get back is... what if they are on holiday or absent soon after they were spotted online with your process?

So, the blockchain would only send a Jury Notification to those it detects are "active" and they would have 72 hours to respond.

But let's take it one step further: The system gives everyone Three Free Passes per year. Maybe you're really, really busy or maybe you watched a video of someone eating Brussels Sprouts and had a heart attack. Fair enough, we'll catch you next time. At some point though, you run out of excuses ... you're just not carrying your weight. That's when the penalties would kick in.

Thoughts?

Quill

Perhaps an "opt out" option would be better? People are automatically enrolled in to this mechanism when they sign up and then they can only opt out once they have done 3 or 5 verifications each year?

Then they are auto enrolled back in at the next calendar year.

Could be an option

Posted using Partiko Android

@nickyhavey,

Also a fine idea.

Quill

@quillfire

I have read your proposal and, by and large, concur. As I do with the contributions of our esteemed fellow PHC members, @nickyhavey and @blockurator.

I shall not comment on the other long thread. That should be comment enough...

Because of my absence, and having gone from posting virtually daily, to once a week - if I'm lucky - anything that I'd consider of substance, I'm not really able to comment on the "new" steem. That said, I posted a bit of what I consider "fluff", using SteemPeak, on Friday. Its performance has, like Allen's experience, exceeded expectations. Also, because of my absence, my "curation" (still a term I'm not totally comfortable with), has also been minimal.

On the downvoting -

My approach is an all or nothing one. Either abolish it, or have qualified downvotes and a tribunal. I like the notion of a randomised and rotated jury of one's peers (we don't have a jury system in South Africa), and I like the suggestion of anonymity those on jury duty - from both the broader Steem community and each other. That brings me to my final point: I agree with Allen that the jury should be a larger number, and I would also go with an odd number so in the event that there is a potential impasse, there is a 50% + 1 option. Allen suggests that there should be a two thirds majority, but not what mechanisms could be employed should such a situation arise.

Allen suggests that there should be a two thirds majority, but not what mechanisms could be employed should such a situation arise.

That's a good point, Fiona. I think it deserves more thought. There is a blockchain-based mediation platform that looks interesting. It's called Kleros. They incentivize adjudication on disputes similar to this. I've considered joining, but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I do think it's an interesting idea, however.

There is a blockchain-based mediation platform that looks interesting. It's called Kleros.

Very interesting.

I've considered joining, but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I do think it's an interesting idea, however.

Why not? I have no doubt you'd be an asset.

Here's a thought: what about a post on it?

Good idea. I interviewed its founder awhile back. He's an interesting guy. South American. They are just ramping up, and I wasn't sure how much time I could devote to being a juror. I'm still thinking on it. A post does sound promising, however.

Great. Look forward to it. The process could help your thought process ;)

Your parallels and parables are awesome. Between your ‘I told you so’s and your definitive suggested solutions, one would think it is time for you to step up and build a witness!

I do like the jury proposition and am intrigued with how that might turn out.

The balance between the whales and plankton is in the hands of the dolphins. Let’s do this!

Posted using Partiko iOS

@zekepickleman,

Hey Zeke.

Witness huh. If it were One Person, One Vote ... I'd do it. Realistically, I've spent almost two years haranguing Whales and Witnesses, demanding that they comport themselves in a manner befitting of their station ... I doubt very much that all would be forgiven. Stake-weighted Witness voting means that even one whale downvote would doom my chances.

Quill

Valid points.

As your business partner, I am simply flipping into solution mode so you and I can put your passion and knowledge to work for the betterment of the blockchain. ;)

Posted using Partiko iOS

Thank you for putting this together.
I came across a shit of a post by a whale that bragged about all the money he was making "curating" which he described as watching numbers and not reading a thing. His post made in excess of $70. I was afraid to downvote it, despite it's being a total piece of shit, because I feared retribution. So you've got that right.
And I am suddenly getting downvotes for no reason at all! They have not harmed me financially at all, but they are a bummer!
I am against downvotes of any kind. It has introduced a kind of violence that I do not want in my life on steem.
And I can think of a shortcoming that compromises "the Central Premise that: "Content Shall Be Compensated Commensurate With Its Quality." and that is the upvote curve. If a post is not making anything, say $.01, my 100% upvote is worth far less than it would be were I upvoting a post that will make over $20. Even at $20 though, my upvote is still not "buying" what it should be. So a newbie posting great content would likely earn nothing at all, unless a Big happens by and slaps them.

@owasco,

The whale you described ... is, alas, why we need retaliatory-free downvoting. I hate to say it, but communities in excess of 150 people (Dunbar's Number) simply don't function absent law enforcement. Carrots aren't enough, you need sticks. Why? Because there's always an asshole. And, because wherever there's a concentration of capital, there will be a concentration of crooks.

"Utopia" means "No Where" for a reason.

If you haven't yet read it, I wrote about this quite extensively in https://steemit.com/steemit/@quillfire/central-premise-and-proposals-a-series-about-fixing-steemit-part-4

Quill

I like your idea of the "Jury Adjudication System" as a potential solution! Bravo for thinking this through, and for explaining it so clearly!

@thekittygirl,

Well, I'm glad you liked it ... because I'm running out of metaphors to articulate the self-evident. :-)

Quill

I have to admit like getting a little more from curating these days. Busy on other things and do not have the time to post or even comment. I would have like to see engagement come out as what is rewarded, as that is what truly will see the blockchain grow. The quality of posts means nothing if no one reads them.

I think the whole bidbot thing has been put into a better perspective. They were meant as promotional tools. That is ... a good post is first written and then promoted. Now given that not only are you likely to lose on the bid, but you will also see have the half earnings then go to your upvoters, they are no longer appealing if you want to turn a quick buck.

To the downvoting. I'd say just ... stop it. Individual platforms should be responsible for governing spammers, which given we control our feeds and not an algorithm, I never understood the issue there. LIkewise, an individual steemian can choose to downvote any spam comments or ignore them on their page but should keep their nose out of how another runs their page content. You like, upvote and comeback. Otherwise, move on. I invested my own capital here, never taken a penny from the system, and I really don't think anyone should set the standards for it but me, provided I am not breaking the laws of the land.

If a post is about hate or illegal content, a flag should mean that platform moderators get involved and maybe even call in the police if necessary.

To downvoting based on a perceived lack of quality: that is an invitation to a flame war. The downvoting system currently in play will chase off more people than it attracts. It's has got to go. Our raison d'etre: to reward quality posts is not a sustainable goal because it has yet to be achieved in any quantifiable manner. The curation bots are good at this, but they have limited resources. But otherwise ... we aren't fooling anyone.

If we want to continue to exist, our raison d'etre has to be continued growth. Getting eyes on the page. We have to make sign-up easier, we have to make purchasing steem easier, we have to ensure people have a good time when they come here and get positive feedback on what they post, regardless of whether or not it's 'great' work. Receiving downvotes is the antitheses to that.

We should be marketing steem for what it truly is.or could be, a blockchain were if I network and buy in, I can get more eyes on my page and maybe over time receive a moderate amount of stake and profit.

A warship is a warship, pretending its a library doesn't float.

Oh yeah ... get us the hell of beta.

@prydefoltz,

Hi Pryde.

Oh yeah ... get us the hell out of beta.

The longest "test drive" in the history of testing ... or driving. :-)

As I argued, we don't have to be perfect to be successful. We just have to be non-disaterous on the fundamentals. Who knew that would be so hard to accomplish?

I know numerous people who are being auto-downvoted (posts, comments and replies) by a whale because they had the temerity to support (or simply interact with) someone who was on the whale's shitlist. This is an intolerable abuse of power and has to be stopped. De-platforming, pure and simple. If there is a thing more inconducive to user engagement and retention, I cannot think what it might be.

Alas, I have little faith in Whales Wars to accomplish the end. They always burn out and the offenders continue unabated. My proposal is meant to bring some order to the chaos. If a thing is truly abusive (an "Offensive Behavior" as defined by "community standards") ... OK, hit it. Otherwise, take your finger off the trigger. If you don't like the other guy's content, hit the back button. Live and let live.

Quill

Auto down-voting. Really ... and that is why we can't have nice things.

@prydefoltz,

I never really wanted a Lambo anyway.

I'd settle for a Honda Accord.

Used. :-)

Quill

You mean vintage;)

@prydefoltz.

.

.
"Redecorate your driveway for $4,000."
... The "QuillMobile"

Quill

This is the USS Gerald R. Ford. At more than $13 billion, it is, by far, the most expensive, sophisticated and potent weapon ever created. Combined with the might of its Battle Group of submarines, frigates and destroyers, its ability to project power exceeds that of almost every nation on Earth.

And yet... there are still a few who dare to fling opposite opinions from a different perspective. };)

But ... There's A Hole In The Hull.

Oh! without a doubt my friend. Several holes indeed. And for that, I'm gonna use the words of @prydefoltz to show the x-ray with the accurate diagnosis.

If we want to continue to exist, our raison d'etre has to be continued growth. Getting eyes on the page. We have to make sign-up easier, we have to make purchasing steem easier, we have to ensure people have a good time when they come here and get positive feedback on what they post, regardless of whether or not it's 'great' work. Receiving downvotes is the antitheses to that.

And just to round up the idea further. Let me say that in order to find better 'Curators' & actual specialists capable of correctly deciphering this 'radiography' they will definitely have to 'READ' and learn much more than 'they' have been doing it so far.

@por500bolos,

Hey mate.

You're right, lots of fixing yet to be done. But it is as imperative to point out steps in the right direction as it is steps in the wrong. If Whales and Orcas are embracing curation at the expense of bidbots, then I want to do whatever I can to encourage the sentiment.

As I wrote in my article, this is a potentially very important development. And, if something is done to make fighting abusive/retaliatory downvoting more practical, it WILL HAVE a very material impact.

Quill

But it is as imperative to point out steps in the right direction as it is steps in the wrong.

Elementary my friend. If one only focus on cheerlead only one of the extremes, there is no way to perceive the imbalances and distortions that are being generated at the other end. This is like trying to straighten a dry leather by stepping on only one side.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) there are stubborn chaps like you and me who insist to step the dry leather on as many ends as we can afford. Yeah, even on the unpopular extremes where no one seems to want to step. :)

Congratulations @quillfire! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You got more than 5750 replies. Your next target is to reach 6000 replies.

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!

Congratulations @quillfire! You received a personal award!

Happy Birthday! - You are on the Steem blockchain for 2 years!

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!