The Narrative Spec is now public!

Emily Barnett posted:

thanks @ted. good reading. Looking forward to the next launch! very excited actually.

One thing. Patrons also had early access to the beta, and were early investors, albiet not as much as founders... It would be nice if they were mentioned in the Specification too. 

Thanks, @Emily Barnett  The spec is more about providing product details.  The only reason the Founders are listed there at all is to clarify the unique benefits that they were guaranteed by earning that status. Of course, everyone who contributed in the token sale deserves praise!

Large document to absorb - but I'm getting there bit by bit.

My overall impression is things are tighter than before - great to see this consolidation of the specs.  Also nice to note the satisfying feeling of having shifted from a white paper, to a specs document - stepping from theory to something that feels much closer to practice.

Congratulations to all involved.

One issue I just noticed is permanent bans.  I don't feel comfortable with moderators being able to impose a permanent ban on someone with no other oversight.  We are going to get moderators who make mistakes, and some who are just plain unsuited for the task.  It is imperative that these sub par moderators are not able to do permanent damage.

And of course, I am still laser-focused on owners being able to step in and be a part of this process.  As long as that ability can be curtailed or revoked if abused, nobody to date has been able to provide a single reason why owners would be summarily designated as inappropriate for this service - a service that solves MANY problems.

As a further suggestion to show how owner participation in moderation can be balanced, you could make all owner interventions in moderation activities uniquely visible so that there are more eyeballs on the lookout for abuse.  Any such action could be visible in a dedicated space, per niche (Owner Actions) - and objection levels to such actions expressed there could be directly monitored by the Tribunal.  Aided by algorithms, the Tribunal could effortlessly become aware of when an owner is being problematic rather than beneficial.

As previously discussed, a forward analysis indicates the benefits will strongly outweigh the occasional problems.  Owners are intrinsically more motivated for their niches to be run smoothly and effectively.

What I am a bit scared about is the fairness of the community. People are not fair, they are egotistical. This can lead to the evaluations not being fair -- judgments are made according to looks or peer pressure. This is just my impression. What is your opinion about this? 

My desire is that narrative community will be a world of inspiration, charity, love and trust!

Hi @Teddy - We're designing the system though to be as fair as possible. One of the most critical components is reputation. That means that the impact of each person's rating will be correlated to the reputation they have established.  Thus, if a bunch of low-reputation people are giving bad ratings, they will have very little impact.

Ultimately, ratings will be important to establish the level of quality for each piece of content, but because reputation is so critical to the determination of rating scores, the scores should be very fair.  Ultimately, if someone is rating or voting based on ego, I suspect their reputation will suffer.

Thanks for your feedback!

Teddy posted:

What I am a bit scared about is the fairness of the community. People are not fair, they are egotistical. This can lead to the evaluations not being fair -- judgments are made according to looks or peer pressure. This is just my impression. What is your opinion about this? 

My desire is that narrative community will be a world of inspiration, charity, love and trust!

@Teddy - your observation should be validated, but I also feel the Reputation system, if well implemented, will go a long way towards making the system functional.

We are humans, and we are flawed.  All we can do is try to devise a system with the right checks and balances to dissuade our more base, selfish drives, and encourage the aspects that build community, fairness, and inclusive, solution-oriented collaboration.

Many community members have felt that though Narrative is heading in a good direction overall, there has been an arbitrary decision to consider there is an inherent and insurmountable conflict of interest involved in allowing niche owners to participate in the management and curation of their niches.

In reality, niche owners are no more and no less human and flawed, than are moderators or the community at large.  What they are is uniquely motivated for their niches to succeed - and they are thus-motivated in ways nobody else is.  The concern that they are not elected is immaterial as long as their influence can be curbed or removed if abused, just like everyone else.

Business owners are not elected in the 'real world' either.  With enough capital, I could buy a controlling interest in Apple today.

I hope that we will come to understand in time that many problems we are going to encounter can only be efficiently solved by allowing owners some degree of curation and moderation influence.

Malkazoid posted:

Large document to absorb - but I'm getting there bit by bit.

My overall impression is things are tighter than before - great to see this consolidation of the specs.  Also nice to note the satisfying feeling of having shifted from a white paper, to a specs document - stepping from theory to something that feels much closer to practice.

Congratulations to all involved.

One issue I just noticed is permanent bans.  I don't feel comfortable with moderators being able to impose a permanent ban on someone with no other oversight.  We are going to get moderators who make mistakes, and some who are just plain unsuited for the task.  It is imperative that these sub par moderators are not able to do permanent damage.

And of course, I am still laser-focused on owners being able to step in and be a part of this process.  As long as that ability can be curtailed or revoked if abused, nobody to date has been able to provide a single reason why owners would be summarily designated as inappropriate for this service - a service that solves MANY problems.

As a further suggestion to show how owner participation in moderation can be balanced, you could make all owner interventions in moderation activities uniquely visible so that there are more eyeballs on the lookout for abuse.  Any such action could be visible in a dedicated space, per niche (Owner Actions) - and objection levels to such actions expressed there could be directly monitored by the Tribunal.  Aided by algorithms, the Tribunal could effortlessly become aware of when an owner is being problematic rather than beneficial.

As previously discussed, a forward analysis indicates the benefits will strongly outweigh the occasional problems.  Owners are intrinsically more motivated for their niches to be run smoothly and effectively.

"Permanent" may be too strong of a word, because they can also be reversed. Moderators can be removed and other moderators can undo a "permanent" ban.  Maybe we will need a better word for it, but the main point is to differentiate between a temp ban that will auto-expire and a long-term ban that will not expire until manually lifted by a moderator.

Another way to help make such bans are rare is to require some minimum reputation level/score, as well, before you can take that action.

And remember that bans are not global-- they are for the particular niche.

I do think such bans are going to be useful in some cases where users are perpetually spamming niches. 

Thank you @Ted and @Malkazoid for this insightful info, which helps me to see the greater picture of this community. If everyone acted like you (which I know is utopian) I wouldn't have any concerns that this community having a bright future. Only I experienced in other communities how unfair some people are, only trying to reach their reputation target. My question is how do we measure reputation?  A case scenario: I want to write an article about garlic! Let´s say I write how beneficial it is to eat garlic. Now, there are people here, who hate garlic. So if they give me a downvote, because they don´t like to eat garlic, I have a bad reputation now, right? I am not sure in which manner and how people define reputation. In our society, good moral values are almost gone. People today give other people a good reputation -  for ex. if they can lie well or are prestigious. I know that maybe some think that I am in a utopian world, but we can create a platform for fairness and trust here. I am optimistic and I appreciate your work very much and I wish all the founders success and wisdom. 

When someone downvotes something, they will have to give a reason... and it should be based on the quality of the content, not someone's personal feelings about the subject.

I'm confident that the system that we are designing will be the fairest way to determine quality, though of course nothing is ever perfect... and we will just have to keep adjusting/tweaking things if we see that the model is not functioning as intended (to promote fair and honest assessments).

Thanks again for your feedback!

Ted posted:

When someone downvotes something, they will have to give a reason... and it should be based on the quality of the content, not someone's personal feelings about the subject.

 

But one only has to look at the voting of niche suggestions,  in order to see @Teddy concern in action. A  few consistent people vote down everything, with their ego, rather than intellectual reasoning. 

Emily Barnett posted:
Ted posted:

When someone downvotes something, they will have to give a reason... and it should be based on the quality of the content, not someone's personal feelings about the subject.

 

But one only has to look at the voting of niche suggestions,  in order to see @Teddy concern in action. A  few consistent people vote down everything, with their ego, rather than intellectual reasoning. 

This response from @Emily Barnett aptly resonates with regards to Niche suggestions; I share the same sentiments.

It will surely play out with voting for contents too when the time comes. I agree with @Ted, 'genuine' reasons must be given for all down votes. 

Emily Barnett posted:
Ted posted:

When someone downvotes something, they will have to give a reason... and it should be based on the quality of the content, not someone's personal feelings about the subject.

 

But one only has to look at the voting of niche suggestions,  in order to see @Teddy concern in action. A  few consistent people vote down everything, with their ego, rather than intellectual reasoning. 

Currently the effect on ones reputation is invisible.  I suspect voting behavior will improve once reputation is:

a) visible

b) central to ones Narrative experience

because it is neither for now, it is easy to ignore. 

Quick note on something I found a little confusing at first in the spec, under the Narrative Rewards section:

There will also be an option to redeem credits for US Dollars instead, but redemption for dollars will be at a rate of 0.85 dollars per credit. Dollar redemptions will take up to 15 days to process.

This makes it sound like each credit redeemed will be worth 0.85 dollars, whereas I think the intended meaning is that a 15% conversion fee will be charged.

1 credit = 1 NRVE

USD withdrawn = NRVE * current NRVE to USD rate * 0.85

but

1 credit (or 1 NRVE) does not equal 1 dollar

(at least not for the forseeable future and even if NRVE does appreciate to that level, it will never be pinned to the USD as far as the current spec is concerned).

 

 

Malkazoid posted:

Quick note on something I found a little confusing at first in the spec, under the Narrative Rewards section:

There will also be an option to redeem credits for US Dollars instead, but redemption for dollars will be at a rate of 0.85 dollars per credit. Dollar redemptions will take up to 15 days to process.

This makes it sound like each credit redeemed will be worth 0.85 dollars, whereas I think the intended meaning is that a 15% conversion fee will be charged.

1 credit = 1 NRVE

USD withdrawn = NRVE * current NRVE to USD rate * 0.85

but

1 credit (or 1 NRVE) does not equal 1 dollar

(at least not for the forseeable future and even if NRVE does appreciate to that level, it will never be pinned to the USD as far as the current spec is concerned).

 

 

Just a typo-- it should be 0.85 NRVE per credit, not 0.85 USD. We will fix it. Thanks for bringing to our attention!

Teddy posted:

Thank you @Ted and @Malkazoid for this insightful info, which helps me to see the greater picture of this community. If everyone acted like you (which I know is utopian) I wouldn't have any concerns that this community having a bright future. Only I experienced in other communities how unfair some people are, only trying to reach their reputation target. My question is how do we measure reputation?  A case scenario: I want to write an article about garlic! Let´s say I write how beneficial it is to eat garlic. Now, there are people here, who hate garlic. So if they give me a downvote, because they don´t like to eat garlic, I have a bad reputation now, right? I am not sure in which manner and how people define reputation. In our society, good moral values are almost gone. People today give other people a good reputation -  for ex. if they can lie well or are prestigious. I know that maybe some think that I am in a utopian world, but we can create a platform for fairness and trust here. I am optimistic and I appreciate your work very much and I wish all the founders success and wisdom. 

As far as fairness concern, I believe its mostly depend on the early adaptors and top users. If we, the early adopters police the community and content the upcoming users will hesitate to game the system and will try to comply with fairness. When the user base will grow fairness would become a standard of the platform.

Like--> Socrum and steem based on the same graphene but in Steem you can see tons of spam and egoistic downvotes and Scorum has almost 0 spam and way more fair than steem cause the early adopters strongly condemn those when the user tried.

Jatin Kumar Hota posted:

As far as fairness concern, I believe its mostly depend on the early adaptors and top users. If we, the early adopters police the community and content the upcoming users will hesitate to game the system and will try to comply with fairness. When the user base will grow fairness would become a standard of the platform.

Like--> Socrum and steem based on the same graphene but in Steem you can see tons of spam and egoistic downvotes and Scorum has almost 0 spam and way more fair than steem cause the early adopters strongly condemn those when the user tried.

I completely agree @Jatin Kumar Hota - the initial culture should make a big difference.  It started with the team's founding principles, which have been well expressed in their messaging, attracting the right kind of early adopters.

Organically, those early adopters will have reached out to people who generally share their same ethos, tipping the scales in favor of the culture starting out with a strong core.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×