That’s awesome.
I highly recommend the course.
Thanks @project_uwb Yes! There are no pre-requisites for being trained as a conflict manager agent. During the first training we certified the people with POAPs, collecting them meant to become a Graviton and be responsible of certain exigences to remain with that status. We aim to promote intra, and inter DAO collaboration.
I’m finding it hard to wrap my head around cred farmers being part of the community.
My wife used to be a Loss Prevention Officer for a drug store. They discovered that the single most effective method for preventing loss was stationing a single person in the one restricted entrance to look the person in the eye and say “Hello”.
It seems to me that doing something like this during onboarding might be very helpful, if we can come up with a digital analogue of this inside our community.
@JuankBell thanks for getting back to me and the links to the presentation. Very cool. Just that I do not see a way of signing up. Do you still run these training courses and where can i sign up and find the next available one? I tried the link on the presentation but it does not work. Also the dates on the training are early this year. Any info on the training schedule and where I can sign up would be great! thanks.
I seriously doubt it will make a dent.
Saying hello to people on the socials is one of the cred farming tactics.
As far as I know you’re welcome to join the Gravity working group meetings on Thursdays at TEC’s Discord.
It is, they are also called leeches, in tip.cc there are hundred, thousands probably.
Their favorite words:
TY
Hello/hi
Oh thank you
Sir
Good morning/afternoon/evening/night
Nice
But don’t get me wrong, most of us use those too, but the thing is that they ONLY use those. XD
I think cred farmers here are the king of leeches meaning they have perfectioned their technique until it is almost as if they were true valuable members.
We can learn from the “leeches” In tip.cc or in any other airdrop server. It won’t solve our problems but it may set us on the right path.
Hey, from SourceCred so biased, but may be able to offer some ideas.
Are these new techniques? More of what 1Hive has seen in the past when HNY was mooning? Is recent abuse documented anywhere?
From the comments here, I’m guessing you’re seeing infractions that fall into a grey area? The often blurred line between collaboration and collusion? In such cases, Gravity and Celeste both seem promising.
Using Gravity to provide (hopefully) skillful dispute resolution could go a long way, especially if there’s a genuine disagreement over what constitutes farming. It also has a nice side effect of building trust in the community. If people in conflict can communicate honestly about something difficult, and come out the other end, they’re more likely to be respectful of each other and collaborate well in the future. It also shows other community members that it’s safe to voice concerns.
However, if there’s genuine disagreement over what constitutes farming, there will likely be cases where people just can’t reach an agreement. Celeste could be useful here. From my (admittedly crappy) memory, in the initial wave of cheating, as documented in the epic Pollen user report thread mega, the hive was pretty good at collecting evidence in varied and creative ways. And there was a general sense of who the offenders were. But there was hesitation to ban all but the most eggregious offender (he who shall not be named but has apparently recently re-appeared? ). Presumably because there weren’t systems in place to make those calls without the perception of bias by project leaders, who do take issues around free speech and censorship very seriously. Celeste could offer a good way to reach the nuanced, intersubjective judgements required here. In more obvious cases (e.g. clear upvote rings on spammy content), Celeste could provide a legitimate avenue for the community to punish offenders (opt of out payments, ban, etc.). In less obvious cases, it could help 1Hive build precedent and “case law” interpreting the covenant’s values. This could be necessary in some form, as defining hard rules in this area can be problematic; they can be gamed around or prohibit valid speech, or instance. This would have a nice side effect of further defining 1Hive’s values generally. It would also provide a regular stream of disputes, providing testing for the system and revenue (DAO drama is an inexhaustible natural resource ).
Another possible way to address this is tweaking the algorithm. The first idea that comes to mind is just lowering the amount of Cred entry-level roles can mint? Like others in the thread, wary of negative Cred. It generally goes against the positive-sum design philosophy and I can imagine it leading to new types of abuse.
@s_ben, it’s always such a pleasant I don’t know why I’m surprised when someone from SourceCred has input. The cred adjustments are discussed on the #pollen channel on our Discord, here.
I wrote a long response but realized that I could have written it much better.
Working on it.
I’m always lurking (that sounded creepier than it is… ), but other developments in SourceCred land have kept me from being as active here as I’d like lately. Have been skimming #pollen channel but doing a more thorough catchup now!
I may not go into my long response.
The gist of it is that Ostrom isn’t always right… you never said she was that would be more side chatter.
Then I realized we handle the cred farming ok, we’re supposed to be helping people not playing police, and our direction should be more toward open dialog with people we think are farming cred.