Respectfully, I don’t think that’s an appropriate followup.
From a TBD role a change has been proposed, feedback was requested, and by TBD privilege it has been implemented. Responding to that, I’m asking for clarifications and expressing concerns.
Rallying support for an alternative is a last resort measure should I’ve lost confidence and feel the need to try and overrule or bypass a TBD choice. I don’t see reason to do that. I have faith it’s all in good confidence and there’s time to discuss.
Besides, I feel like my other questions wouldn’t be heard if I moved just my alternative idea to a new thread, while they’re perfectly on topic here :]
As such I’ll repeat and summarize my previous position.
I think this is a heavy change including:
- Disproportional recency bias.
- Parameters I can’t explain (such as 5k per plugin when it doesn’t saturate the cap).
- Great concerns about gatekeeping, centralization and bottlenecks.
- Risk of excluding a new group.
But primarily the increased weights for higher social roles are concerning to me.
An irony I hadn’t pointed out yet:
Besides dogfooding, this is about power dynamics. Those who already have superpowers shouldn’t also have a Cred advantage. But we’re giving the roles such as core who have a different set of superpowers an extra Cred advantage in the same PR?
- Why wouldn’t this cause the same issue all over again?
- Are we preemptively doing this or has an actual Sybil / Eternal Summer issue occurred?
- Are increased authority and moderation options not sufficient in our near-term trust level?
- Do you think the 1x-2x-3x role weights had the urgency to need including in this change or could it have been discussed more.
I’ll stop myself there for the moment.