1. Right. At least upvotes don't do any obvious damage, though.
2. Like a tribunal. Obviously, we'd need to keep in check the tribunal itself. Maybe if all their actions are made public, and Team Snapzu oversees them.
1.) Well, non-obvious damage can still be damage. If snaps are artificially inflated to seem accurate/liked/good, then that could begin people to doubt the ratings at all when (if this happened often enough) obviously bad posts are still upvoted regularly.
1. Right. At least upvotes don't do any obvious damage, though.
2. Like a tribunal. Obviously, we'd need to keep in check the tribunal itself. Maybe if all their actions are made public, and Team Snapzu oversees them.
3. That's all we can ask :)
1.) Well, non-obvious damage can still be damage. If snaps are artificially inflated to seem accurate/liked/good, then that could begin people to doubt the ratings at all when (if this happened often enough) obviously bad posts are still upvoted regularly.
2.) Basically what I was thinking, yeah.
3.) Then I shall carry on! :)