Well. I'm not allowed to participate for 12 hours because I couldn't afford to pay twice the fiat price for the niche auction I won.

Service: Narrative

Well. I'm not allowed to participate for 12 hours because I couldn't afford to pay twice the fiat price for the niche auction I won.

Service: Narrative

I could have paid $86.25 for the niche that I won in an uncontested auction. But the price of NRVE skyrocketed before the auction even ended, and it never dropped below $100 fiat.

So now I'm CONDUCT NEGATIVE. Just thought y'all should know what happens, since it didn't really affect any of us active members in the alpha period to any serious extent:

Your Conduct Status is negative.

The negative action that impacted your Conduct Status was: Failure To Pay For A Niche.

What does this mean?

When a user is considered Conduct Negative, they lose the ability to:

  • Suggest Niches
  • Bid on Niches
  • Vote on Approvals
  • Appeal to the Tribunal
  • Nominate themselves for Moderator Elections
  • Post/Edit Content (not even saving/editing drafts)
  • Post Comments

The amount of time you remain Conduct Negative depends on the severity of the action and the number of negative actions you perform over time. You are currently scheduled to remain Conduct Negative until .


At least I'll be asleep for most of my punishment period.

Original Post

Activity Stream

And considering a troll has been running amok last weekend, who’s been able to do all these actions unrestrictedly, it’s insanity. Pure insanity.

I hope the team can make an offer to undo your conduct status. At least before the team makes the proposed changes that locks niche prices at auction.

My punishment is up in a few hours, but I just thought I'd demonstrate what exactly defines "bad conduct" and how it is penalized. Sure, I expected not to be able to place a new bid yet, but I didn't think it was going to stop me from being able to do ANYTHING on the site at all. The punishment doesn't exactly fit the crime here.

Punitive measures tend to be less effective overall than positive reinforcement methods. I am turned off by the over-emphasis on punishing regular users who make an honest mistake or whose innocent actions don't meet with community approval. This is an example. And when I had a niche suggestion rejected, I couldn't suggest any more new niches for seven days. Just for having a not-so-good idea.

Yet,  as @Vico Biscotti says, a known troll is allowed to run amok and act as resident insurgent. 

This is where the game theory experts need to kick it into overdrive. How can we positively reinforce good behavior and disincentivize bad behavior without overly penalizing honest mistakes from good users. In this case, the reputation you've already built should have come into play when meting out the disciplinary measure. I think Denis Wallez would have something to say about the ethics of this situation, and I'd be inclined to agree with him.

@Garden Gnome Publications, certainly the system needs heavy tuning. They're working on that for sure, even if I expected more protection since the beta and, as you said, the reputation should have already had a role.

Anyway, I wish they do not rely too much on the "game balance". Incentives and disincentives work up to a point. When malicious subjects kicks in, enforcement may be the unique way. A black hat may not act as supposed, according "usual" interests. Maybe his/her interest is exactly destabilizing the system. A chess game works when both players want to win according rules. The moment a child wants to sweep the chessboard, the rules of the game work no more.

Good points @Vico Biscotti - and I think this is the area the team might find themselves fighting old tendencies to want rep algorithms to make everything work.

Moderation is crucial, and the Narrative Company having the ability to step in and get rid of bad actors is too.

And this will probably eventually lead to a discussion of human curation again.  I know it is a bit of a side conversation to the one about trolls, but posts all about money are also somewhat problematic for the platform but I certainly would not downvote them.  Plenty of people upvote them, because a lot of our current community come from crypto and are primarily interested in if they can get rich.

With these posts at the top or near the top of trending, quality and discover pages, our main market is probably turned off...  Most people just want to come and discover content, or join a community they feel they can relate to... and most people feel dirty when a place gives off a get-rich-quick vibe...

We're relying purely on algorithms to place the pieces of content that represent Narrative... it just isn't optimal.  If we finally allow niche owners a small degree of curation, we'll find human beings making better choices than the code does, and we'll allow them to attract better content creators because they'll be able to offer to feature them in some way for a limited period of time.  Humans can also recognise low rep and low vote content that is clearly worthy of more exposure, and so decide to give it a few hours at the top.

So there's trolls, and there's content by good users that still may not be the best representation for Narrative.  We only get one chance at a first impression, and new user's first impression is the content they first see on the platform.  Leaving that up to algorithms is neutering our ability to tailor our image.  A hybrid of algorithm control, and limited niche owner/moderator control would work best.

EDIT - tagging in @Brian Lenz@Ted and @Michael Farris - not so they feel they need to respond, but so they are aware these considerations are linked.

@Malkazoid, I agree. And you're pointing at the important "side-issue" of the marketing of narrative.

I'm convinced algorithms can have a role, but not as they are. At present, my quality analysis is 25 and the father of the trolls has 38 (you 49, just 30% more). Makes no sense. But curation is important too. Maybe with publications, a door will open? Or they will conflict with niches?

For now, an aspiring black hat can own niches.

Having a safe and "clean" space is not just important for marketing and the well-being of the community, but for motivating users to publish good content, and expose themselves. This needs human intervention. Without good content, this ends up with being a money game, and to be renown for that.

A case in point is the Narrative Community niche.

Currently, the featured post is represented by a person fanning USD.

No disrespect to @Rich S who is contributing good content and truly cares about the platform's success.  But that post and that image have been front and centre for about a week, and if people go to the Narrative Community page and see that as the featured item, they will assume that's how the community chooses to represent itself.

In reality, we made no choice on how to represent ourselves - the algorithms did.

The post is a good post - you read it and come away with some important points that actually are supportive of our current conclusions in this thread... which is why so many have upvoted it (me including)... which is why it has been featured so heavily...  but the impression given when that image is the biggest thing on screen on the Community niche is not optimal.

@Rich S shouldn't be doing a single thing differently in my view.  What should change is the notion that algorithms know what is best for the platform.

Malkazoid posted:

A case in point is the Narrative Community niche.

Currently, the featured post is represented by a person fanning USD.

No disrespect to @Rich S who is contributing good content and truly cares about the platform's success.  But that post and that image have been front and centre for about a week, and if people go to the Narrative Community page and see that as the featured item, they will assume that's how the community chooses to represent itself.

In reality, we made no choice on how to represent ourselves - the algorithms did.

The post is a good post - you read it and come away with some important points that actually are supportive of our current conclusions in this thread... which is why so many have upvoted it (me including)... which is why it has been featured so heavily...  but the impression given when that image is the biggest thing on screen on the Community niche is not optimal.

@Rich S shouldn't be doing a single thing differently in my view.  What should change is the notion that algorithms know what is best for the platform.

Not to mention that our beloved troll has commented on that article too, and is still there in plain sight...

Maybe some changes to the rating system?

Since all of the content could be viewed as promotional, one way or another. It's kind of a matter of degree:


1 Content that promotes leaving the platform for selling purposes. Could have its own separate "promotional" feed or page(with an attractive and obvious button/banner/top post of course), so readers decide if they feel like shopping.

2 Content that keeps readers onsite is the main page or feed (links for citing sources, and right now there's no import feature, so members might be adding a link to their own original source, are fine since there's no selling involved)

3 Content that promotes the platform is awkward given how things are set up now. It makes more sense to me to make Narrative boosting - out of the goodness of our hearts - IE, no rewards.

I mean, it's free advertising for everyone doing it this way.

But as things are, it's getting top-heavy. I think it will get even more lopsided as time goes on and I agree it it's not the best first impression.

Aren't the moderators/owners the human curators? I think once more owners are present, and mods in place,  - and there's more content, of course - what we see on the front page will be different  ... @MALAY BANERJEE suggested a "older post replay idea, the other day that might boost over-looked content, too.

Christina Gleason posted:

My punishment is up in a few hours, but I just thought I'd demonstrate what exactly defines "bad conduct" and how it is penalized. Sure, I expected not to be able to place a new bid yet, but I didn't think it was going to stop me from being able to do ANYTHING on the site at all. The punishment doesn't exactly fit the crime here.

This shouldn't happen to members of good standing like you @Christina Gleason and @Gosia Rokicka  - but right at the moment, people with no standing are mucking up the niche buying process - and the penalties that shouldn't have happened to you guys are the same ones that could stop the turkeys in their tracks. I don't mean it shouldn't be changed, but right now, it might be better to leave it until the troll thing is fixed?  

Good points @Vico Biscotti and @Malkazoid. I agree that a certain degree of human moderation should be necessary. On Steemit, the best initiatives are the human-curated ones. 

There should be hard distinctions made between bad actors and malicious accounts. A bad actor can be trained. Sometimes people have good intentions, just don't understand the platform culture, or make mistakes that are not reversible. A malicious individual, however, can do a ton of damage intentionally by exploiting a platform's weaknesses--as we have recently seen.

Colleen Ryer posted:
Christina Gleason posted:

My punishment is up in a few hours, but I just thought I'd demonstrate what exactly defines "bad conduct" and how it is penalized. Sure, I expected not to be able to place a new bid yet, but I didn't think it was going to stop me from being able to do ANYTHING on the site at all. The punishment doesn't exactly fit the crime here.

This shouldn't happen to members of good standing like you @Christina Gleason and @Gosia Rokicka  - but right at the moment, people with no standing are mucking up the niche buying process - and the penalties that shouldn't have happened to you guys are the same ones that could stop the turkeys in their tracks. I don't mean it shouldn't be changed, but right now, it might be better to leave it until the troll thing is fixed?  

The problem for Gosia and me is the way the fiat price is calculated for winning bids, which is a separate issue from the heavy-handed penalty I got. If you maliciously bid on multiple niches and fail to pay for them, by all means, punish to the full extent of the "law." But clearly the system of penalties needs to be revisited because it isn't what anyone would consider reasonable.

As such, I did open a ticket with a suggestion here: https://community.narrative.or...be-renamed-redefined

Christina Gleason posted:
Colleen Ryer posted:
Christina Gleason posted:

My punishment is up in a few hours, but I just thought I'd demonstrate what exactly defines "bad conduct" and how it is penalized. Sure, I expected not to be able to place a new bid yet, but I didn't think it was going to stop me from being able to do ANYTHING on the site at all. The punishment doesn't exactly fit the crime here.

This shouldn't happen to members of good standing like you @Christina Gleason and @Gosia Rokicka  - but right at the moment, people with no standing are mucking up the niche buying process - and the penalties that shouldn't have happened to you guys are the same ones that could stop the turkeys in their tracks. I don't mean it shouldn't be changed, but right now, it might be better to leave it until the troll thing is fixed?  

The problem for Gosia and me is the way the fiat price is calculated for winning bids, which is a separate issue from the heavy-handed penalty I got. If you maliciously bid on multiple niches and fail to pay for them, by all means, punish to the full extent of the "law." But clearly the system of penalties needs to be revisited because it isn't what anyone would consider reasonable.

As such, I did open a ticket with a suggestion here: https://community.narrative.or...be-renamed-redefined

Not to say that you are penalized and you have to take it, while the malevolent one opens an additional account and plays again. As many times as he wants.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×