Such fighting is rather childish and I find it sad that people would go out of their way to attack certain individuals on the sheer basis that they disagree with them. People need to just take the flags and move on. Especially when they are making bank in the meanwhile.
Conflict like this could be better resolved if we validated larger votes against the smaller votes in the total sum. To validate a larger vote, we simply count up the value of the smaller votes and compare. If the total sum of the every vote but the top vote is less than the top vote, then we should penalize the top vote for not having legitimate support. We can treat flags separately the same way. We trim the vote until it no longer exceeds the sum of the remaining total.
With such a system, lone self-upvotes would be negated and @haejin would be earning a more appropriate $40 per post. Rewards will be back in line with expectations and we can move on.
Or we could keep doing nothing. Not that I would be opposed to that. It gives me things to write about.
This sounds a lot like vote negation, which was suggested a while back but never saw the light of day.
I wonder if those against this originally may be having second thoughts.
This does not work like vote negation, however, in that nobody is locking up their SP to use against people. With this idea, the distribution system itself negates a portion of the vote rather than a user or group of users allocating SP to negate some of the user's rewards.
I go into more detail about the idea here.
Thanks for the info!
Self upvotes get me too. They are deemed acceptable, and I’ve adopted them outside of the 30 minute window myself in accordance with the general way things run. I’d like to see them addressed as I’ve seen one particular prominent YouTuber come in and begin to full weight upvote every interaction with his audience. And there are a lot. If you have a lot of cash, you can get a lot out of the system.
There's nothing wrong with voting for yourself. The issue is that we don't want to reward self-upvotes unless there is enough support verifying that vote. We don't want to reward people that do lazy one comments and then upvote themselves behind the scenes. We also don't want huge whales voting for themselves without a significant community to back them up as well.
So for prominent YouTubers, if they bring an audience, they should be rewarded, but if the community can not match their vote in magnitude, they shouldn't be rewarded. The same goes for their commenters as well.
Very much a case by case basis. I do see what you mean.
Haha awwww someone didn’t like you talking about them!
Because that's how you built communities. You adjust and adapt and try to fix things. You don't go back to the bully and fight them. That never works. You keep your mind open, try to understand what both sides want and try to find a solution that addresses the concerns of the community and seek peace.
But people don't like diplomacy. They like war.
No, I brainstorm ideas, take criticism, make those ideas better and try to change the ecosystem. Complaining is a waste of time and fighting is a bigger waste of time.
As for war, that is what is occurring due to human nature. People like fighting when their greed is not quenched. And when people start fighting, sometimes unfair things happen to innocent people. So, I rather fix things than waste time assassinating the character of certain individuals I disagree with because that doesn't help anyone.
If people want to ignore me, they can. But eventually it will be a brainstormer that provides the change we desire to see, not fighters or complainers.