Public Chat Room Governance
Recently I’ve faced some offensive messages in public chats, and we need someway of limiting public chat abusers, such as bad trolls, offensive language, flooder, spammers, scammers, etc.
I also think that each room can have their own rules, lets say #spankchain would have loosen rules about type of language accepted in their channel.
Some channels might also require Identity Claims to accept user messaging on them.
While I see that is not possible to prevent users from broadcasting messages in the network, is totally possible to ignore (not display) message from non participants of a list or that are not in a specific format.
- user should have to lock SNT to have voice in a public channel. This price might get higher if a room have too much messages.
- when a channel have too much messages, the users with higher visibility stake would be more visible.
- the more visible you want to be, the more funds you put in stake while using public chat or report tool.
- visibility fee should be at minimal very lucrative for judges to press the correct button.
- judges get 80% of visibility fee, not matter the result (so they don’t have economic incentives of choosing one result over other), remaining 20% goes to challenge winner visibility stake.
- a hash of the channel rules can be decided by Topic Democracy.
- each channel can have its own rules, otherwise they might fallback to a default public chat rules
- users can report other users that are abusing the chat by staking their self visibility stake against user being reported visibility stake.
- a user can only be reported only up to its visibility stake, and multiple users can report a user if other users didn’t challenged total of reported user visibility stake.
- users that abuses chat functionality can have its visibility stake slashed.
- users that abuses report tool can have its visibility stake slashed.
- looser of challenge can be time limited to buy the visibility stake
- once user withdraw/lost visibility stake, their messages should fade away and not return back when new visibility stake is placed
- a topic delegation would be able to vote directly in challenges.
- votes are influence based on SNT balance + delegated SNT influence
- judges need to see only: channel rules + message contents + visibility fee in challenge, and they can only accept, reject or ignore.
- bad judges just but don’t win slashed visibility fee
- good judges get the slashed visibility fee
- slashed fees are accumulated in a contract and withdrawn when user wants
- amount of funds is divided based on SNT influence under your vote / total SNT influence
- delegators might also get 50% of funds even without ever voting.
- looser of challenge might appeal to a new result by staking the same amount of funds is about to loose.
- the new voting happens in Topic Democracy parent delegate proxy.
- user can appeal up to root delegate chain
This don’t apply to “private groups”, a specific architecture for this small DAOs is more interesting because they seems to be simpler in some aspects and also require some additional features, as subscription fee.
This is just brainstorming is not a final idea, but I think this is a feasible way we can solve this problem in decentralized fashion.
Topic Democracy is another idea under development together with Voting Dapp, that might change itself and impact this idea, but its all manageable.
I would like to hear ideas from community on the best way to do this, and also some other ideas about “visibility fee”.