RE: Lasse's Angels promotion campaign: Are you an attractive female that would like to make 5000 LASSECASH per post ones a week for 3 months? (Guaranteed, potentially much more if the price of LASSECASH goes up)
Preference:
I would downvote flag something if I don't like it or whatever. But technically, specifically, I wouldn't downvote because it was over rewarded because I don't even know what over rewarded means. I mean, according to who? It's like the definition of hate speech or spam.
Perspective
It's like what is one person's garbage could be another person's treasure that might be priceless and therefore impossible to be over rewarded, if it is priceless. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Free Markets
In free markets, it is about supply and demand. So, an upvote could represent demand. Therefore, if there are more upvotes, then there is, in theory, more demand, and therefore perhaps more rewards or an over-reward or whatever we want to call it.
Freewill
Of course, we all have the freedom to upvote and downvote whatever we want for any reason. So, we can even say that we are downvoting what might be over-rewarded.
Hate Speech
We can also try to ban and remove hate speech and spam and guns and many things if we want. I wouldn't. I would simply downvote and say I'm downvoting because I hate it and not because it is like earning too much money.
Competition
I love money. I believe, if you make a lot of money, good for you. I'm not going to cry and say that you might be earning too much money. Why?
Subjective
Because that is a subjective argument. Like who decides who makes too much money? So, if Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, or others were over rewarded by being paid too much, then we could try to boycott them and make videos about how we should stop paying them via going to their games, concerts, buying their music, etc.
Too Much
If people are making too much on Steemit, then I guess we could downvote them and we could make videos and write posts encouraging people to not upvote their content and to maybe even downvote their content. Therefore, I guess, you might be right that this was over rewarded. I just did a logic circle. I'm back to the beginning. Maybe I should just delete this comment. But I'm just saying it depends lol.
I think you answered your own question(s) here - each person can use their up or down votes to show how they feel about a post. The consensus of which is rewarded at payout.
I didn’t remove all rewards, I chose to use my stake to decrease this post by the amount that my vote is worth. Others can choose to reward it for what their vote is worth if they think its worth more. This is exactly the way the system is designed.
Technically, payout comes on the 7th day of a post and therefore it was not over-rewarded yet because payout doesn't come until the 7th day; therefore, it might be silly to say that it was over-paid if it was not yet paid out yet. But people can choose to downvote anything for any reason, true.
But beyond that, why would you say that it does not deserve more money if other people believe it does deserve more money?
My Main Point
Is your main reasoning for downvoting based on how much money it earns or based on the quality of the post? I would downvote because the quality was too low as opposed to that the rewards were too high.
Why
Because I would rather my downvote focus on downvoting bad content as opposed to trying to keep certain people from making too much money. Of course, downvoting does both, but I think it would be better to not let the money part of it taint the ability to be objective enough in order to deem a post too bad.
Technically
Actually, I never downvote. I just upvote what I like and ignore what I dislike. But if I were to downvote, I would try my best not to let the money part contribute to who I downvote.