RE: Be Careful, Steem!
True, thank you. That pulls the question of limiting the amount of accounts either.
I would like to ask you to remain for a moment at the idea of having conducted a poll. Suppose you've chosen a maximum amount of 500 SBD. Continue to accept that your choice is visible to all system participants (i. e. it is not secret). If you now use the loophole and create multiple accounts to trick or bypass the system, the question arises of how you will react when others will track and challenge your activities.
Without a consensus on an upper limit, it is difficult to accept this at all is a questionable act. For me, this would mean that participants who open several accounts below the upper limit would have to be treated differently from those who exceed the upper limit. Similar to our existing legal system, a perpetrator may in principle be punished for a law offence. Now the individual case is always to be considered and I can disapprove of the act, but understand the background. For example, as a judge I sentence a perpetrator to a one dollar fine, because in this particular case I recognize a motive that would not justify a harsher punishment.
What do you think? Is this approach worth thinking about and developing? I have put in an idea that I find very interesting and would have liked to see whether there is a willingness to deepen it.
So far the Steemit space looks to me as a virtual state where the settling citizens are being asked by themselves to discuss democracy.
I don't exactly understand what you are saying but I will try ;)
So you mean there should be measurments to punish certain users for doing certain things by making up "laws"?
In my eyes making up more laws moves the platform away from what I think are it's core values.
And even if such laws where there, I am not sure about how you would find out which accounts belong together, or how you would prove those findings. And punishment by law without prove isn't something I approve of.
Everybody can express his disagreement by downvoting/flagging, centralised punishment options are nothing desirable in my eyes.
I agree about not centralizing everything. But also not of decentralizing everything. Something in the middle, I would say.
Does that answer your question?
As my approach is not finished and I do just some brainstorming here, I thought it might be good for something. A consensus might change the single interactions as well.
Do you think it would be of some support to you in being asked about a maximum-upvote-amount-per-user? And would it be of use to you to see the results of others, too? ... This could lead to a habit of law and not to a centralized form of legislation, execution, and justification.
I ask myself the question if a poll and the result of it would change my view and habit in flagging/downvoting.