indeed, that's a problem. didn't think of that. thanks for the feedback.

Good point.

No this is not true. I know of several instances of new users getting hit with a whale auto downvote. And their posts were less than 1SBD in total.

>I knew they are using the term game theory to make people cooperate. 

This is not why they are using it.   Read the wiki link I supplied you.

Game Theory is not used to shut down conversation.  It is to put into context of understanding that WANTING something means you need to think of possible ways that can be EXPLOITED if it is given to you.   

Everything has rules.   How do these rules balance each other out?  How can they cancel...

I friggin' hate the flag as it exists... for a long time I was an advocate of an up votes only system and I wrote asking for such for a good 5 months.

It was a game theory explanation that made me stop advocating for removing the down vote.

That doesn't mean I don't still want an up votes only system.   It simply means I haven't thought of a way to stop an UP VOTES only system from being extremely exploitable.   Until I can solve that I cannot advocate for removal of the down vote as it is currently the only thing that CAN negate such systems where people game/exploit the system.

This is not making you cooperate.   This is life.   Actions have consequences.   When building things from code we do them, but we also need to think about not just technical hackers, but social hackers, who will exploit weaknesses.

In an up votes only system someone could create infinite accounts up voting their own single account and over time drain the pool and be very powerful without ANY interaction from other users.   Down Votes from other users can stop this.    This is but one example.   Yet it shows how it is exploitable.

Personally I'd be willing to experiment with up votes only and having something like being able to flag stuff as spam, plagiarism, abuse and if witnesses agree they can do the equivalent of a flag or some system like that, but I don't know how feasible it will be.

Yet using the term Game Theory has absolutely nothing to do with wanting you to cooperate.   It is two words that define the situation.   They don't solve it.   They put it into context.   Every action has consequences.   Wanting something doesn't mean there may not be bad consequences so game theory is about trying to determine the positives and negatives and ideally it will be a balanced system where every positive and negative has a counter balance.

I do think the flag as it exists in steemit/busy now has more negative impact than it does positive, so I do not think it is equally weighted.    Numerically it is equivalent.    Psychologically and system impact it does not seem to be equivalent.   This is a problem, and Game Theory could actually indicate that if it were pursued with other factors such as PR, Social, Psychological, Communal perception impact.    Just on raw money, votes, and reputation though it is equivalent.

> The game theory enforces people to choose posts strategically and somewhat discouraging them to freely choose what they really like.

I know you've written that in the context of author rewards, but this is why I'm against curation rewards.

I'd be fine with removing self voting, I considered that, then I applied game theory type thinking and realized all I'd have to do is create another account and have them vote on each other.   Suddenly I bypassed the restriction on self voting.   That is an example of game theory thinking.

Part of the problem is that there are some BIG PROBLEMS that we haven't found a good code solution for.    So we do need to experiment, but we need to do it at the code level and set a time period for how long before reviewing the results.

That would remove guessing, and speculating about who is right and who is wrong which just leads to decision paralysis.

I think we need to experiment with some things other than n^2 and while that is not in 0.17.0 there is a good chance it will be in 0.18.0.

You have the point.

A downvote was applied to partially counter earlier whale votes as an experiment to reduce whale domination of voting influence. Not intended to express an opinion on the content nor result in a net reduction of rewards or reputation (automated notice)

The dev team makes the releases; without working and reliable software, no amount of community decisions result in any changes.  The bottleneck isn't the community, but software development.

That said, what I said is still true: We (the community together) still intend to do so.  It's coming.