You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Governance - Weight Equivalence - Draft

in Proof of Brain4 months ago

Interesting concept.

One thing to keep in mind is that whatever criteria you establish, you will get more of that, as people try to climb the ladder. So you want criteria that are very objective and cannot be easily schemed or gamed, and that clearly improve the overall community as people strive to be atop the leaderboard for each metric.

For instance, if one of the criteria is "# of comments posted" you run the risk of shifting engagement from deep and thoughtful comments to lots of shallower comments. Of course, you could also try to have a metric that rewards deep and thoughtful comments, so that you reward both.

Sort:  

For instance, if one of the criteria is "# of comments posted" you run the risk of shifting engagement from deep and thoughtful comments to lots of shallower comments

So I thought of the @ AMR008 bot, where it tries to measure the quality of the comments, and so far it was a great method


Posted via proofofbrain.io

I am aware of his work, but not the details. The thing to keep in mind is that once something becomes a metric used for governance or financial gain, it becomes a carrot (changing behavior) rather than a yardstick (reporting behavior), and will encourage people to exploit any weaknesses.

No doubt such a system would require multiple iterations to make it truly robust (which can be readily done on Layer 2 with minimal risk).

I wonder why people seek not to make the effort of a job which, it seems, is of high value. Why on earth would you want to automate something unless you are also disinterested in the task itself? After all, you only make automated processes possible when the actual act of human labour is disagreeable and tedious. So why do one want to screen comments for quality if at the same time you don't want to do the work yourself and would rather do something else? Where there is no interest in doing something, how can governance take place in a trusting way? ( I am not meaning "you" but "one").

Trust is something that we want to get rid of as much as possible because we distrust each other. The blockchain serves as a trust provider in which one switches off the human component and prefers to trust the "unbiased technology". For me, this is not coherent.

It is as if one were to say that only when work is done without any human influence have we excluded corruption, manipulation, nepotism and other displeasures.

... Work, if it wants to be of high quality, does not happen en masse and or in an automated way, it is not a commodity by the metre, it cannot be marketed with a watering can and it needs time.

In my time as a PR professional, I pursued the concept of small but subtle and very targeted, but in precisely not a mass-generated work and had great success with it. I realised four measures per year, which always involved only a few conversations with the respective decision-makers in a given segment. This agreement was to the win of all who took part. I had very much fun in realizing our PR-concepts, the media was delighted by what we offered in return, the readers won through participation a product of uniqueness and high quality. I marketed chocolate bars (trivial and cheep ones) but added value with nowhere to buy, handmade or hand selected items. I added a theme to it (themes like "magicians items, booklets to learn card tricks, Halloween, riddles, fairy tales, comedy", products which let the senses feel well etc. etc.)

Transferred to the Hive's sphere I only have so much time to add comments of value. I don't and can't mass produce them. That would be ridiculous and to whom my comment is of quality, is also very differently approached and received. No automat can judge it by numbers, if you ask me. But maybe I am wrong. Dunno.

So I find your answer of much intelligence,

once something becomes a metric used for governance or financial gain, it becomes a carrot (changing behavior) rather than a yardstick (reporting behavior)

Though I really have no definitive answers on how to create a rule-less sphere where rules nevertheless are being used. :)

I mentioned to you the systemic approach in reaching consensus. Did you have time to read it meanwhile?

Greetings!

I could probably write a bot that could generate comments that that bot would think were quality comments. :)

Yes you could. The difference is that I mentioned his bot for being a bot that already exists before I made this post, and that a lot of people know and approve of.

In a free market like we are, anyone is likely to make a bot. The reliability in it that is the differentiator.

Your bot would have to show itself to users to be reputable and quality, for people to adopt it.

It would be great if you did, the more competition, the more quality.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

I wouldn't make such a bot. I am stating that if you used a bot to reward people based upon it analyzing quality of comments then a bot could be designed to game that bot.

This depends on the person's nature and not the bot itself.


Posted via proofofbrain.io