You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Let's Have a Discussion on: Self Voting and Flagging
I don't know the specific person / situation you mention but if they were posting a bunch of pointless comments just to upvote them, then I agree it's spammy and is generally bad behavior. I don't see self upvoting necessarily spam when it's not joined with an activity that makes it spammy like many pointless articles (I've seen it recently combined with @randowhale votes) or comments as you mention.
There is just as much potential abuse for downvotes (flagging) as there is for upvotes. I personally think flagging needs an overhaul to reduce the possibility (and reality) of abuse.
What kind of an overhaul would you suggest? Anything in particular you have in mind?
I'm thinking about posting an article on this topic but here's my general thoughts.
If someone has earned upvotes through their own community and not illegitimately then they should not be at the mercy of somebody else (and possibly their followers) taking away those votes/earned value.
Imagine a scenario where a community has formed on Steemit around a topic, let's say abortion. Authors that have valid opinions and have gained notoriety and value for their published thoughts should not be worried about the other side ganging up on them and devaluing their work. It is censorship plain and simple (if an article gets enough downvotes it's devalued AND hidden).
My idea would be something like.
This gives the opportunity for the community to flag an article without affecting the visibility or the value of the article. It does affect the decision for others to upvote (or not) the article because they see a flag from another member they trust.
So the flag can affect other members' decision to not upvote an article, but it cannot take away the value and votes an article has already earned.
Also, downvotes are not only censoring the author but they are censoring others who have upvoted that author. If your downvote cancels out my upvote then you have effectively silenced my voice.
I appreciate your comments. Would you say someone else voting against your vote in an election silenced your voice? Or is that just negation?
It's a bit of a different question, since votes are not equal on Steemit, although in reality, neither is political power.
Not entirely sure where I stand on this issue myself.
I understand where you are coming from with the question, but it's apples to oranges. In an election, the end result is a community choosing a leader to represent them. We're not doing that here. We're not voting on articles so that they become the sole words that are to represent the entire Steemit community thoughts and values.
With my vote, I am choosing to use my own scarce resource (a portion of my voting power) to assign a valuable asset (currency) to an author I think is deserving of it. If you downvote that same article you have taken away value from the author and voting power from those who have voted. In my opinion, it should not be possible to take away something that has been earned and given legitimately. That's what downvoting does.
It's true. If we continued the election analogy, the loser of an election doesn't end with 0 votes. They just end up with less, and in fact the margin of victory is considered relevant for determining vague things like a "mandate" for larger changes. With flagging at the current time, you don't just outvote the opponent, but subtract. The results are similar, but not the same.
Sounds like a good start, 100% upvote :D
Followed as well...