In cases where the community votes incorrectly, it seems in my best interests to simply go with the flow and vote for 'the winning team' rather than vote correctly and take a reputation hit. I get the feeling that this 'gaming' the voting system is happening-- maybe not always maliciously, but to save time and boost rep.

So my question using a real example: the Niche Homeopathic Treatment looks set to be accepted by the community at 12 (for)- 2 (against). Even if the remaining 8 votes go against it, it will still pass. However, the Niche Homeopathy is already approved and awaiting purchase. Obviously these 2 are redundant and the former should be rejected, but it would be in my personal best interest to vote for it and receive positive rep. The only reason for me to not game the system and vote against it (besides it being a jerk move and not in the best interest of the community) would be if the reputations are reversed upon Tribunal removal of Homeopathic Treatment, in which case my negative vote would result in positive reputation.

Original Post

Hi @Dana,

Excellent question.

What is in your best interest is to vote against the redundant niche, AND to appeal the community voted decision if the niche is approved by the community.

Make a little note somewhere to make the appeal.

In this manner, you vote according to your true belief rather than pursuing the sometimes misguided wisdom of the crowd, AND you do the network a service by making sure the problem of the approved redundant niche makes it before the Tribunal, while putting all the chances on your side for your vote to improve your reputation.

We don't know how the algorithms will weight these rep effects, but my hope is that they will take into account the effort that folks make to not only vote the right way, but also to bring problems to the attention of the Tribunal.

The quick reply is that we are still tweaking the reputation formulas and spec, so there is no definite answer on this question. Further, it's doubtful that we will publish every nuance of how reputation is determined, because doing so would lead to more gaming.  

The longer answer is that the example you gave is a great example of how complex some issues are. Ultimately, our goal is to have a reputation system that reflects final truth (i.e., Tribunal opinions should influence reputation) AND to encourage people to be honest when they vote.  Of course, no matter what the system does, some people will be lazy and vote with the majority nearly every time.  One potential way around that would be to hide the vote results until the vote concludes.

Hmm, good question. I'm noticing the same thing.

Someone created a Niche called "Daily Fantasy Sports" but in the subheading stated that "this also includes e-sports," which I know to be completely wrong, and the appeal failed. (My brother is a HUGE Esports & Fantasy league guy, and I can assure you, they're not the same thing)

It's as if people are creating niche titles, but then trying to 'dragnet' other subjects in the Niche subheading, even if unintentionally, because they're unaware to what's already been created.

Speaking of the devil, my Esports niche has already been paid for, and now someone is saying that there's a duplicate.

This is why they call it 'Alpha.' 


EDIT: What Narrative does not want to do, is penalize people for providing honest and factual feedback. If I knew, for instance, that sending a Niche to appeal because of an honest and factual mistake would cost me reputation points, I would stop participating altogether in that process. Nobody wants to be penalized for being honest.


Are the Tribunal details on how they came to the decision made open and transparent to the community, or is it "top-down"?

As mentioned in the Narrative Manifesto:

"We adopt a decentralized approach; to replace top-down management of users and content with a system where the entire community is involved in setting standards, curating content, and reducing the influence of bad actors."

To avoid acting as "Big Social" I think Tribunals will have to be naturally open processes to allow the community to see how "final truth" is approached. If it's a closed-door 'philosopher kings' type of process, Narrative should resist moving in that direction. (in my humble opinion)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm looking at Completed Tribunals, and I don't see any notes, no community involvement, and no transparency. Hopefully, this will be taken as constructive feedback to make a stronger community.

For instance:

Democratic Tribunals like Canada's Human Rights Tribunals, have all decisions published, and how each decision was arrived at.

(In brief: Niche tribunals must be democratic, open, and transparent to satisfy Narrative's own manifesto)

The main issue we are finding with Niche creation is the duplication hazard...all of the other standard rejection reasons are pretty obvious.  I know the Narrative team has tried to do a simple name match to show potential dupes...but this clearly isn't enough.  The example above is the reason why: Homeopathic Treatment isn't showing 'Homeopathy' under similar Niches.  I think most people are using this as a guideline while voting, or will simply rely on the legwork of another narrator who has said, 'this is a duplicate of this Niche over here'.  While not showing the votes and percentages would take away the 'herd' mentality, I think that is the wrong approach.  The herd, at least in my opinion, is usually correct about these particular types of votes, and it saves everyone's time.  I can't imagine trying to search for similar Niches for every single Niche vote.  What's important is that at least 1 real human being attempts this research.

Since this is really the main issue with Niche suggestions / voting right now, I propose opening a new position within the community.  Something akin to a moderator, who's sole job would be the vetting of all new Niche suggestions and supply feedback in a comment after doing some basic research.  Alternatively, Narrative staff could also take this responsibility on...I know they are already doing this in some cases.

Add Reply