Narrative, Steemit, and the Influence of Power

In A Tale of Two Cities, the great Charles Dickens tells of the struggle against aristocracy in two of the most powerful kingdoms of the 18th century. Set before and during the French Revolution, it delves into some of the most important themes of the day, such as justice, poverty, redemption, love, and the abuse of power. These are befitting themes to revisit in the nascent age of blockchains and algorithmic governance.

As it were, I've used my Steemit platform in part to promote the up-and-coming blockchain-based social media platform Narrative, not so much because I hope it replaces Steemit (which I don't), but more so because I think there's room for another player in this space and I think Narrative has some potential. It is not perfect, however, and I recently got to witness what I think is one of its budding weaknesses.

I'll preface the below analysis by stating that I don't believe there is any social media platform that can be all things to all people. As ubiquitous as #Facebook is, some of us use it not because we like it but because we realize that's where the bulk of the human race currently spends it frittering time, and not to fritter with the masses makes one, in essence, a social outcast at best and a techno-pariah at worst. As anti-social as I am, even I can see that.

Nevertheless, we humans love communities, whether we fit into them or not. We're wired to exist in community, and so wherever community is possible, there you will find us trying to make the best of it. This analysis is my trying to make the best of it.

The Narrative Aristocracy and the Struggle for a Niche

The notoriously effervescent @quillfire requested that I explain the difference between being a Niche owner and a Niche moderator at Narrative. This seems like a good place to do that. But I'll do you one better and discuss the chain of hierarchy at Narrative as well as its pros and cons.

Let's start with the basics. When you first join Narrative you are nothing more than a new user, a "Narrator" to use the native lingo. It's pretty simple. Just like anywhere you might be the new face, you know nothing, you know no one, and you feel as awkward as a teenage boy at his first dance party. However, the Narrative platform is real quick to encourage new users to suggest a Niche, and many do. Of course, what costs little will be valued little, and it costs nothing to suggest a Niche.

Image from Pixabay.

Niches at Narrative are like spokes on a wheel. Few people pay attention to spokes on a bicycle wheel, yet they quietly and unassumingly perform the very important job of holding the wheel together and transferring the power from the hub of the wheel to the rim so that the wheel spins and the bicycle is propelled. This article does a much better job at explaining it than I can.

At Narrative, Niches allow members on the platform with similar interests to congregate in one place. They also allow members to tag their personal journal entries in such a way that they are more easily found and more widely distributed to people who share those interests. Each personal journal entry is allowed up to three Niche tags. Unfortunately, Niches that have no ownership cannot be tagged because they are not active.

That brings me to the topic of Niche ownership. Once a Niche is approved (I'll cover this process in a jiffy), it then goes up for auction. This process seems straightforward. When a Niche is suggested it goes into auction and members of the Narrative community vote on it. If it's approved, it is auctioned for ownership. If not, it's rejected.

Niche Auctions and Owners

Niche auctions on Narrative are a little odd. They last for 72 hours from the time the first bid is placed. If it happens to be a Niche that no one bids on, it can sit on the auction block perpetually. The minimum opening bid is the equivalent of $75 USD in NRVE, the native token. After that, minimum bid increments are 1 NRVE. Of course, the value of NRVE is dependent on market forces.

This is one of those things that seems somewhat arbitrary to me. As of this writing, there are 2,592 approved Niches, but only 745 Niches are owned by 304 Niche owners. And, I'll add, a Niche owner doesn't technically own the Niche. When you win an auction and agree to be a Niche owner, you are effectively leasing the Niche for one year. And you can abandon the Niche at any time by bowing out and putting it back up on the auction block (but why would you?).

Niche auction winners have 72 hours to pay or they lose the Niche. This is how I ended up with the Speculative Fiction Niche, which I suggested as a new member. Another new member joined and immediately bid on the Niche, won the auction, then failed to pay. So I bought the Niche instead. After a year, Niche owners can renew their lease or put the Niche back on auction. Renewal is $75 USD in NRVE or 20% of the previous year's earnings, whichever is greater.

When a Niche is bought and paid for initially, whoever suggested that Niche gets a 10% commission on the sale price in NRVE. If you suggest a Niche and then win the auction, you effectively get a discount. I didn't realize that until researching this article.

A Niche owner has one responsibility: Promote the Niche. In return, they receive 10% of the rewards earned from that Niche, which are distributed monthly.

Niche Moderators
Niche moderators are important positions. They review the content in a Niche, approve or reject content based on community standards, review comments, and have the power to ban users for bad behavior. It's the equivalent of moderating a Facebook group.

You would think that Niche owners have the right to appoint moderators, but that would incorrect. Niche moderators are elected by the community. Each Niche can have up to two moderators. Owners can also be moderators, but they have to be nominated (you can nominate yourself) and elected by the community.

As it were, the Speculative Fiction Niche I own is currently undergoing a moderator election. There are currently two candidates vying for the position (I am one of them), but there is room for more.

The Tribunal
The Tribunal is the governing body of Narrative. We can all take solace in the fact that it isn't a monarchy. However, during the Alpha phase (now), The Tribunal is made up of Narrative staff and founders. After Beta launch, there will be an annual election (starting in September 2019) to elect up to 15 Narrators for these positions.

The name itself sounds capricious, as if The Tribunal is some self-appointed judiciary with absolute power.

Image on Pixabay.

In effect, it does have absolute power over all governance issues regarding content, channels, and users. While there is no check against its powers, Narrative has built in limitations on individual Narrator influence. For instance, terms are for one year, and no Narrator can serve for more than 10 years during their lifetime. In my opinion, that's too long. I'd limit terms to no more than two consecutive and no more than six years in a lifetime.

One important decision The Tribunal makes is whether or not a Niche is approved based on its uniqueness and other factors as designed by the Narrative Specifications. The problem with this is that Narrators may be placed in a position to make decisions on matters about which they have no knowledge or experience. And I'm of the opinion that a decision is only as good as the information on which it is based.

The Fight Over a Fiction Niche: Micro, Flash, and Arbitrary Influence
Now that I've provided the lay of the land, let me relay the specifics of an incident I recently witnessed. @felt.buzz recently clicked on one of my Narrative links and joined the platform. He immediately recommended a Niche - Micro Fiction. His definition for this Niche seemed reasonable to me:

Very short stories - anything from 140 characters to 250 words.

That's not exactly how I'd have done it, but it wasn't my Niche or my suggestion, so who am I to say it's wrong?

What happened next seems a bit ridiculous and could have been avoided with better guidelines for Narrators on Niche approval. Because there was already an approved Niche for Flash Fiction similar to the above description for Micro Fiction, a few Narrators downvoted the suggestion for Micro Fiction. As of this writing, voting for the Niche suggestion is still 19 hours from ending. It will no doubt fail.

As you can see from the above screenshot, the Flash Fiction Niche has been approved and is up for auction--for the second time. During the first auction, the individual who suggested the Niche won the bid, but since there were no other bidders and that individual failed to pay, it went back to auction.

Meanwhile, I wrote a post on Narrative's forum explaining the situation and noting how this could cause issues (others had already addressed the anomaly). Then I filed an appeal to The Tribunal on the definition of Flash Fiction as stated for the Niche that now hangs in limbo.

As a side note, the definitions of microfiction and flash fiction continue to be debated among fiction writers and publishers. Microfiction is generally considered a subcategory of flash fiction, which is generally defined as fiction up to 1,500 words or, depending on the publisher, 1,000 words. Microfiction is generally defined as anything shorter than 300 words. Again, definitions vary among publishers.

Interestingly, after my forum post, another Narrator suggested another Niche named Microfiction and gave it this definition:

Microfiction is any story told in 300 words or less - even as short as a few words. An example is the apocryphal story attributed to Hemingway: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." Pack a punch in as few words as possible. Not as easy as it seems!

Now, why would this individual do that, as opposed to appealing the originally suggested Niche to The Tribunal? Simply put, because when a Niche is purchased at auction, the person who suggested it gets 10% of the sale. How's that for incentive?

With slightly less than an hour-and-a-half left for voting, as of this writing, I'm afraid this Niche suggestion will pass. I had originally voted for it. Upon closer scrutiny, and after reading the ground rules again, I changed my vote. Immediately, the approval rating dropped from 100% to 97.06%.

The original Micro Fiction Niche sits at just over 50% approval. I'm quite certain Narrator reputation has a lot to do with vote weight. When this Niche had only three votes against, one of them was a Narrator by the name of Chrstina Gleason, whose reputation is 34.

You can see by the above screenshot that the vote against is at .24 points with seven votes. The votes for are at .27 points with a count of 13. Christina Gleason's vote accounts for .10 of the vote weighting, a significant amount compared to the rest.

After changing my vote, Ms. Gleason responded with the following comment:

I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, so I trust that her word is good enough. Still, good intentions does not detract from a bad user experience, and my friend @felt.buzz certainly had that. He left Narrrative pronto with this characterization:

I have to congratulate the owners/designers of this platform for creating the most unwelcoming toxic environment I have ever come across. I can't imagine readers will want to spend much time here, I certainly don't.

I think this is a hasty response, but not undeserved. I would have used the word "hostile" rather than "toxic," but I won't nitpick. I don't mean that the other Narrators were intentionally hostile. They're simply following the ground rules set by the Narrative founders. It's those ground rules that are hostile.

I have no idea who Ms. Gleason is, and I certainly have no axe to grind with her, or with Narrative (I'm still pro-platform). She may very well be a good-hearted woman looking for her good-timing man. But here's what my observations lead me to conclude:

Narrative has set the stage for some to step up and assume a Big Fish-Little Pond posture. I'm all for incentivization and democratic processes (to some extent), but Plato believed pure democracies lead to tyranny. The strength of the U.S. Constitution is that it protects minority rights against the rule of the majority. Narrative's specifications do not, and there lies its most glaring weakness.

Is the Steemit Aristocracy Any Purer?

I've been very open about my criticisms of the Steemit UI. As a result, I refuse to use the Steemit platform to make my posts. I exclusively use eSteem Surfer and SteemPress, jumping back and forth depending on the nature of my posts. But Steemit has other issues, and they're widely known.

Founded on the principle of a meritocracy where excellent content is rewarded and poor content is not, Steemit promises hard-core content creators like me a Nirvana of benefits. But all one has to do to see through that campaign promise is check out the trending page. I learned early on not to rely on the trending page for content suggestions, so I don't.

The trending page is a symptom of the problem, however, and not the problem itself. The real problem is an outgrowth of Steemit's USP (unique selling proposition).

Blockchains are developed with code-based governance systems, which is fine when it comes to rewards distribution and distribution of resources. However, algorithms can't govern human behavior. Therefore, other mechanisms are necessary. Where Narrative attempts to create a democracy ruled by an oligarchy, Steemit has built its platform on the principles of pure libertarianism. Sure, users vote on Witnesses, but there are so many Witnesses, and each user gets so many votes (30) that it can hardly be called a democracy. At best, it is semi-democratic. But I digress.

The problem with Steemit is not its Witness election process. Rather, the problem is its toleration of vote-buying. On the Steemit platform, anyone with the skills can create a votebot. And the owners of these votebots can charge a fee to promise buyers guaranteed rewards based on the strength of the bot's vote. There may not be anything intrinsically wrong with this, but the practice violates the Steemit USP that only the best content gets rewarded.

I've made this argument before, and I'll make it again. Quality is subjective. One man's artistic genius is another man's cesspool of mediocrity. But bots don't care about quality. They care about following the instructions of their creators. The mere presence of votebots violates the alleged meritocracy, no matter how subjective, of the Steemit content economy.

The outgrowth of the presence of votebots is that users can buy votes for inferior content (and it can be inferior by multiple standards of subjectivity). The more STEEM a user has to "invest" in a bot vote, the more the user stands to gain in rewards. And these rewards, sham as they are, are exponential. Keep throwing money at the bot and the bot will continue to grow your rewards pool.

The only redeeming quality of these bots is that they are just as available to true high-quality content creators as they are to mediocre and poor content creators. Except that quality is judged on a bell curve. There will always be fewer exceptional content creators than there are run-of-the mill creators. And the only recourses exceptional content creators have to counter the rise of the gang of mediocrity living off the flesh of voting bots are the downvote and the flag. And these have their own problems.

Image from Pixabay.
I was in a Discord server one day and witnessed some whales discussing one of their Steemit friends who had received some criticism from another Steemian (maybe even a downvote or a flag). The critic, of course, was a Plankton or, at best, a Minnow. Not powerful at all by Steemit standards. These whales (and dolphins) rounded up all their buddies to go and defend one of their own. They organized a flag war on this little fish, and when that little fish apologized for his indiscretion they all removed their flags. I was embarrassed for them. But this is the behavior that Steemit encourages: Bullying. Luckily, this doesn't happen too often on this platform, but it does happen. As a result, the rest of us have to watch our steps or be subjected to battle flags.

The Big Fish-Little Pond Syndrome can develop anywhere. I was booted from a Steemit Discord server with approximately 50 members with no explanation, and when I messaged the moderator to inquire, didn't even get a response. In the spirit of full disclosure, this was early on in my Steemit experience when I was struggling with optimizing my SteemAuto votes, so I halted all voting for a few days to allow my resource credits to recharge. I forgot to restart it after a couple of days and ended up not upvoting member posts for a week. Is that why I was booted? I can only guess, but it could have been discussed and a reasonable solution reached with a little conversation. But why waste time with discussion when you can just exercise your power?

Like the Narrative aristocracy, the Steemit aristocracy is baked into the ground rules of the platform. Unlike the Narrative aristocracy, the Steemit aristocracy is based solely on the value of one's account. If you're a whale, you have power; if you're a Minnow, you don't--unless you align yourself with a swarm of other Minnows.

Tips for Surviving a Blockchain Aristocracy

There is no perfect social media platform. All of them, centralized and decentralized, have their pros and cons. Anywhere you'll find a member of the human race, there you'll find imperfection. For that reason, social media influence is always going to be a struggle for power. Whether you are maneuvering through the capitalist-based Steemit caste system, the democratic oligarchy of Narrative, or something else, the following ground rules should guide us all to a better social experience:

1. Read the whitepaper first. Before jumping in, try to get an understanding of the platform, the ground rules, and the value system of its creators.
2. Ask a lot of questions. Be humble and ask current users what issues they struggle with.
3. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. More experienced users should be kind to new users and tolerant of their lack of knowledge of the platform. New users should respect the knowledge of their forebears.
4. Be helpful.
5. Discuss issues. Don't be reactionary. If you can't reach a reasonable agreement or consensus, part ways and agree to disagree. Don't let your frustration poison the environment.
6. Find ways to improve the social environment you are in. Focus on what you can control, not on what you can't.
7. Have fun. Don't make it all about monetary rewards. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

Dividers by @EdibleChthulhu.

UPDATE: The Micro Fiction Niche on Narrative that was suggested by @felt.buzz was approved by a thin margin. There were seven votes against with a .24 point total and 15 votes in favor for a total of .29 points. The Niche was approved with 54.72% of the vote. In an unrelated matter, the FreeWriteHouse Niche suggested by @MarianneWest was also approved with 60.34% of the voters in favor.

Get your weird lit on:

The Biblical Legends Anthology Series

Garden of Eden	Sulfurings	Deluge
At Amazon	At Amazon	At Amazon

Limerents in the Bog

At Amazon

While you're here, check out the backside 5:

• Narrative, Steem Monsters Fan Fiction, and a Steemitblogger's Endorsement
• Exquisite Corpse 2019-1, a Virtuous DPoll, and the Fabulous State of Steem dApps
• 3 Things I Wish To Say This Happy Saturday Evening
• The Evolution of Social Media
• Ups, Downs, and Settlers of Catan

Review Me, Please

Created by @EdibleCthulhu