You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is this Quality Knowledge I Put Out Not Helpful to Steemit? Flagged for Quality Getting Rewarded?
EDIT: I didn't notice the positive change to flag rules, but I'm very glad it went through! ^^
Original comment: Agree or disagree with Smooths decision, but this is what subjective valuation can look like on the platform. Someone is gonna get their preferential toes stepped on.
It's also why the flag should be removed from Steemit.com; Because hardly anyone uses it as a flag.
It's no real change in rules. what Rules? All it is, is justification for people with an attitude who add no valuable content to the platform to do whatever they want and still pretend to be good people.
To most users, there would clearly seem to have been a change in the rules on Steemit.com (not the Steem blockchain) that told users for what the "flag" (not labeled or displayed as an ordinary downvote) "should" be used.
When clicking on the flag, the confirmation page used to read;
"The flag should be used for the following:
Fraud or Plagiarism
Hate Speech or Internet Trolling
Intentional miscategorized content or Spam"
Now, you say that
"All it is, is justification for people with an attitude who add no valuable content to the platform to do whatever they want and still pretend to be good people."
I don't think we should have needed a change at all, but clearly in this case (with even dantheman downvoting to change payouts) we needed it.
From here on we should ofc still continue discussing what the downvote and maybe even a separate flag should and could be used for. But this is a start to clean up on Steemit.com, in order to be less confusing and more attractive to outsiders.
This: "The flag should be used for the following:
Fraud or Plagiarism
Hate Speech or Internet Trolling
Intentional miscategorized content or Spam"
is no change. It is the same as it has been. Where is the part about one person taking away the reward garnered from hundreds of votes because of their self important opinion?
Reiterating an opinion often, does not make it fact.
I, personally, haven't talked to "most" people on Steemit, and don't know what they think. Indeed, how many is "most" people on Steemit? A very few, influential people on Steemit have expressed opinions geared toward justifying their use of the flag at a whim, but no changes have "gone through". Gone through what? The flag is confusing because it is only one action that unduly penalizes people when abused by people with too much power and not enough sense. Adding more reasons to use the flag will not make it less confusing.
Whose job is it to "clean up Steemit"? Batman (the rich guy), the Sheriff (the moral guy, who gets paid to)? Making Steemit the best we can falls to all of us to do, otherwise it will be just another den of oppression, and no one will want to be here.
The part I quoted and since you quoted, is what was before.
Now it instead reads;
"Flagging a post can remove rewards and make this material less visible. Some common reasons to flag:
Disagreement on rewards
Fraud or Plagiarism
Hate Speech or Internet Trolling
Intentional miscategorized content or Spam"
I agree that the flag is confusing. That's why I've opposed using it for simple disagreements at all up until now that the rules were changed.
Let's at least agree that the flag symbol should be removed.
If this is true then I must intensify my search for a better platform to which to add my efforts. If people with millions of steem power want to redistribute rewards, let them give minnows some of their steem.
Taking it from others, who have garnered hundreds of votes from the aggregate of steemians, is not adding valuable content. It is presuming to speak for others.
To some extent I agree with you here. It is not optimal. Far from it.
That's why I've made several comments in the past about some (in my own opinion) clever ways to improve on the system.
In the beginning I got no attention, then all of a sudden everyone wanted to flag everyone against the old guidelines in the name of "fairer distribution" and now it seems I'm one of the first to adapt to this change. (sometimes I'm happy I never put in much money; it let's me be much calmer, colder and somewhat detatched when everyone else is running around screeming)
What we really need are some sharp changes to the platforms scaling of payouts, in my opinion. Accompanied by better onboarding, by rewarding the voters on the introduction posts of those particular users that later go on to become successfull bloggers. That way we would have both a referal system and more people actively looking for good new writers, rather than just good or just new writers to gamble on.
Curation (which includes voting in both directions), is considered a valuable contribution, arguably more valuable than the content itself (what good is content if there is nothing to sort the wheat from the chaff?) That's straight from the white paper.
abuse