Hi @shortsegments,
#objective
Yes, the curation needs to be objective. With systems in place where the bias towards manipulation of the decisions would be as low as possible.
#transparency
How do we achieve this?
I would suggest we choose two or three permanent members for a core team. The responsibility of the core team is to decide where the 100% votes need to be given as per the rules.
With the two or three people in the core team we add seven more people from the group (those who have delegated steem for this group). These ten people shall then internally vote and decide where the 100% up votes should be given.
Or each of the members can decide a single content and let you know where their 100% votes need to be given.
These additional 7 to 8 people will be chosen each week on rotation basis by the core team, such that each person gets a chance to participate.
If two or more members choose a same content for vote then we ask them to choose another one..This way more people get rewards.
Before we fix a final draft of working we can do two or three trial runs to see where there may be roadblocks to fine-tune it better.
So the decision of the 100% votes are left with the 2 or 3 core members and the 7 or 8 rotating members.
Not based on votes or comments.
What do you all feel?
I like the intent of your idea.
But It’s really complicated, and would require considerable work, so I am not sure it’s sustainable. I suggest you think about these things and if there are 9 other people to put in the time for this plan.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, you are right. It is quite complicated. Would not be a good workable process for a long term.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit