Sort:  

If they remove it, I will make 10 posts a day from all of my accounts and upvote them at 100 percent 10 times a day.

No, I wouldn't but others will.

No, I wouldn't but others will.

... And already do. Look at @haejin for example ...

I agree with you that flags are essential.

I see your point, and I can't really blame you for using that argument, but let's be real, this is exactly what's been happening on Steemit for a long time, and Downvoting has not fixed this problem.

Where I am sincerely at a loss for words, is in offering another solution to that problem. I really don't know how we can deal with the Posting for Rewards syndrome, but maybe this is just a natural consequence of having a monetized social media. Maybe we just need to learn to co-exist with this phenomenon.

I believe that if we had the SMTs, Steemit would be able to create a separate token to distribute for Author and Curator rewards; a token that has far less value than the Steem token, and which could be more heavily distributed to really reward socializing. I would suggest a 10/90 Rewarding of Author/Curators, no time reward (reducing auto-voting) and to equally divide the curation rewards to all curators, no matter what your voting weight is.

And I would have the value of your vote be equal to 0.1% of your Steem Power at 100% Voting Power, and have it reduce by one point per percentage, so that if your Voting Power were at 62%, your Voting Weight would be 0.062% of your SP. This would mean that those with high SP would not only help reward Authors, but also help add more to the reward pool for Curators. The idea is to take away the incentive to milk the system for ROI. The emphasis would be more on socializing, casual or otherwise. And with that, we could do away with Downvoting.

Go look at my posts to see how much I am downvoted. A LOT.

I point that out so you know I have thought this through and take it seriously.

We should continue to allow downvotes, but also have an account or group of accounts that volunteer to review and heal downvotes. It will still be imperfect, but this is crypto... We have to solve our own problems not cry to authority to fix them.

I think part of the problem with downvotes are the established culture. Instead of ... Hey great post, I think it is over rewarded... People call each other names and attack.

Maybe we should work on the culture, not the tools.

Decentralization is very messy, but it's worth it. :-)

If we were to compare it to the all the states of the U.S. or from my place of birth, the states of Australia, it all leads to duplication and redundancies, but it preserves control at the lowest levels. It is a principle that encourages multiple solutions to a single problem.

Having said that, it is not the magic bullet to solve all things. It is a tool to be applied to a specific end. It carries with it a burden on the part of the individual to actually care about the freedoms of others, whether we agree with them or not. That is in short supply in our modern era. Distracted by pleasure, passion and the pursuit of personal happiness, we barely have the time to care about others we like, let alone the ones we don't like.

We should continue to allow downvotes, but also have an account or group of accounts that volunteer to review and heal downvotes. It will still be imperfect, but this is crypto... We have to solve our own problems not cry to authority to fix them.

I think @jaki01 proposes that steemit inc give big delegation backup for this one particular account to counter this downvote that purely for an abusive act. Then have an open sort of "steem court justice" for the whole community to see all the review and heal downvotes application on a steemit blogpost. Not doing it in the discord only. Transparency..

I believe that the culture would change if the Downvote were not an option. We know that the Downvote is hardly ever used to determine the value of a post. It is purely retaliatory or abusive. I know we all love to hate Facebook, but they were very smart in understanding that the negative vote would be anti-social. And I believe it was a smart move even though many people insisted that they wanted the Thumbs Down button.

YouTube, on the other hand, decided to give it a go, but how many people can honestly say that they ever decided to not watch a video because they saw too many downvotes? I certainly never have.

I think the best culture is the culture of; if you don't like an Author, don't follow them. Proof-of-Brain is a failed concept. What was written about in the White Paper never happened. We have not produced Authors superior to any other site. So why not just focus on being a Proof-of-Social platform, where we incentivize socializing, and forming communities.

We should have a blocking feature that would mute accounts in both directions, so that if I am being abused by someone, I Block them in such a way that I do not see any of their posts or comments, and they do not see any of my posts or comments. Upvoting those who are being Downvoted abusively wastes time and resources.

What if you could Block those who are Downvoting you, or being rude, and they could longer see your posts or comments, wouldn't that be a great relief? Be honest, you'd be smashing that BLOCK button a lot lately!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70351.33
ETH 3563.43
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.72