102 sats \ 29 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 24 Jul \ parent \ on: Incentivizing Downzapping meta
I nominate you for sheriff.
Make @siggy47 the sheriff. He knows the law better than most. I don't want to downzap anyone to be honest. Only obvious bots, sats farmers and grifters.
reply
Yes, make @siggy47 the sheriff and @undisciplined must be judge to decide upon if there's any controversy arising out of downzapping.
I would be terrible in that role. I lack the ability to spot stuff like obvious ai, bots, etc. Often other stackers have to point them out to me. @carlosfandango seems to have a knack for sniffing this stuff out, as did the legendary @nemo
reply
deleted by author
deleted by author
reply
Only obvious bots, sats farmers and grifters.
I think that's all most of us want. I've been making more of a point to downzap stuff like that, too.
The change I made is that I'm just doing one sat, unless it's egregiously bad. My thinking is that if I'm wrong, the one sat won't hurt them. However, if I'm right, the downzap will make it cheaper for someone else to outlaw them.
reply
I dont think I have met any sat farmers or grifters yet.
Were they more common before?
Or do they still show up?
reply
Do you have Wild West mode enabled? If not, you won't see the posts and comments that have been outlawed.
reply
reply
Not really, but that’s why you’re not seeing the spam.
reply
It's Christmas in July and you have been a good stacker!
1k sats for you.
reply
Thanks Santa!
reply
It's Christmas in July and you have been a good stacker!
1k sats for you.
I too.
reply