You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Historical Facts about Daniel Larimer and his Contributions to the Blockchain Industry
Disgreement shouldn't attract flagging. Thats abuse of the system in my mind. Otherwise we will be at the mercy of mob mentality.
You're speaking ideologically. I'm just explaining practically, and think we are to some extent at the mercy of mob mentality.
I think downvoting should be banned. Thoughts?
If you think Dan's a genius, which I do, you wouldn't want down-voting banned. Sure it can be abused, but it's part of what regulates the community, and punishes bad behaviour. Steem wouldn't work half so well without down-voting.
Bad behaviour can be flagged? If someone has 200 people upvoting a post for just $30 and a whale who disagrees with the sentiment can destroy/steal then it's not good is it? The same whale could leave a comment with their opinion and upvote it making it highly visible. Powerful down voting is censorship and I'm sure we all agree we don't want that? Yes Dan's a genius but all systems have to be tried and tested to see the end result?
No, it's not good. Neither however is the network filling up with self-voting spam to the extent that you can't find good content any more, and people leave. I believe that's what would happen if down-voting was removed. This problem isn't new, and there have been 19 hardforks to Steem. Any of those could have removed down-voting if the witnesses considered it beneficial.
Also, whales such as Dan and others do sometimes impose big down-votes on accounts which are seeking to damage Steem by hosting pirated video on related services for example. If the community doesn't have the ability to down-vote illegal/immoral content, 'the authorities' would likely impose more draconian censorship by shutting down Steemit.
Good points. But again couldn't anyone posting pirate material be flagged having the same effect? The guy who flagged and downvoted the comments here has a massive minus rating so obviously he revels in causing mischief. However he's successfully censoring innocent and harmless comment. Also... I've not come across selfvoting spam? Everyone I see self votes to give their posts a kick start. This is a necessity?
This post has suffered collateral damage from a 'whale war' between Dan and Berniesanders (who is another whale with many accounts). I believe his main account has a negative rep primarily because of Dan down-voting him. I don't know what their dispute is about.
Voting for your posts seems reasonable for most people (I've recently stopped though), but self-voting comments is considered by many to be voting abuse. There are factions who would like self-voting banned, but this would have unforeseen consequences too. I also have the account @steemreports and develop http://www.steemreports.com, which analyses many of these things.
Thanks Andy. I'll look into those accounts your have...you might be interested in Jerrybanfields post on Steemits top earners.
"Disagreement shouldn't attract flagging." Well said @tarquinmaine
"...it's part of what regulates the community." @andybets, that's correct.
equally important bit "censoring your opinion with their collective steempower is wrong" by @tarquinmaine
If our (steem) community is to thrive, the contributors should be educated on how to use their influence power and, at the same time, how to differentiate between "inappropriate content" and "different point of view".
We all need to stay strong, supportive, well knitted and unbiased/depoliticized.
Now this is mind baffling.. see this snapshot of comments in this same article... The guy hassanabid gets flagged for appreciating the author for replying to a very inappropriate comment in the most appropriate way. That's why I said the contributors need to be educated. Otherwise, the "mob" culture will grow, as is evident in the conversation below.
I was just about to point this out. Well said @jawadwaseem