That is why it is important to protect freedom of speech. Diverse points of view might be healthy for the community. When devision and drama was going on in bitcoin community I thought bitcoin community would destroy itself, but look at it rising non-stop. I think I have heard you say before, there can't really be true censorship on Steem. Posts/opinions might be deprived of some rewards, but can't be removed.
As others have pointed out, no one can deprive anyone of rewards. Pending payouts are just that... pending. It takes 7 days for all opinion - negative and positive - before it's paid out.
I think that express a negative opinion in a comment that's one thing.... to flag a post because it does not exactly coincide with your idea, that's another.
To be fair, even on Steem most authors are OK with it. It's just a few very loud and very sensitive people. I suppose it's expected that the most butthurt by downvotes turn out to be anarchy minded folks. You may find that ironic, but that makes a ton of sense.
I have been part of some bulletin board style forums in the 2000s and Reddit subs after that. I work in a profession that's dictated by subjective opinion. In my experience, broadly I'm happy to report that people can accept negative opinion. Some are hurt to varying degrees, but most accept it and learn from it.
true, true. But I think downvoting stuff you don't like can be healthy as well. The only time I got downvoted so far was when people felt "attacked" by me. Feelsbad.
People should try more to separate criticism of character and criticism of idea, both on the attacking and receiving end.
ah lol, I read it as "if someone gets downvoted for saying something negative that is bad", but you meant "If I cant express my negative opinion = downvote, there is something wrong with the system", right?
Whether it is pending or not, once someone sees they have received X amount of dollars through peer up votes, the brain recognizes it as being a loss when someone else takes that "pending amount" away.
Like I've said on other posts, the problem is not the authors fault, the problem is lazy ass auto-voters. If you don't take the time to read, let alone even see someones article, then you shouldn't be entitled to upvote. (personal opinion)
Oh, totally agree, i was being somewhat facetious, hence the ;) at the end.
Upvoters, bots... its all a big problem on here as we know.
Reward should be made at a level based on the combination of of natural talent and effort - effort in both the creation and curation sense. (but i guess you could have a natural talent for curation too).
If up-voting was "fair" then there would be no need for down-voting (as much).
That's the most I can indulge in mindnumbing Steem drama :)
For the first time i might flag one of your posts ;)
Word!
That is why it is important to protect freedom of speech. Diverse points of view might be healthy for the community. When devision and drama was going on in bitcoin community I thought bitcoin community would destroy itself, but look at it rising non-stop. I think I have heard you say before, there can't really be true censorship on Steem. Posts/opinions might be deprived of some rewards, but can't be removed.
As others have pointed out, no one can deprive anyone of rewards. Pending payouts are just that... pending. It takes 7 days for all opinion - negative and positive - before it's paid out.
That is good point. Never thought of it that way. Learning everyday.
Amen @geekgirl!
I think that express a negative opinion in a comment that's one thing.... to flag a post because it does not exactly coincide with your idea, that's another.
Most people are incapable of accepting and dealing with a negative opinion... while it can actually help someone to improve...
To be fair, even on Steem most authors are OK with it. It's just a few very loud and very sensitive people. I suppose it's expected that the most butthurt by downvotes turn out to be anarchy minded folks. You may find that ironic, but that makes a ton of sense.
I have been part of some bulletin board style forums in the 2000s and Reddit subs after that. I work in a profession that's dictated by subjective opinion. In my experience, broadly I'm happy to report that people can accept negative opinion. Some are hurt to varying degrees, but most accept it and learn from it.
true, true. But I think downvoting stuff you don't like can be healthy as well. The only time I got downvoted so far was when people felt "attacked" by me. Feelsbad.
People should try more to separate criticism of character and criticism of idea, both on the attacking and receiving end.
That's pretty much what I meant :)
Upvotes without downvotes is unhealthy. That would be living in some Orwellian dystopia.
ah lol, I read it as "if someone gets downvoted for saying something negative that is bad", but you meant "If I cant express my negative opinion = downvote, there is something wrong with the system", right?
Yup!
Haha very true... but when disagreement turns to monetary loss, all shit hits the fan
It's not monetary loss if the payout is still pending ;)
Whether it is pending or not, once someone sees they have received X amount of dollars through peer up votes, the brain recognizes it as being a loss when someone else takes that "pending amount" away.
Like I've said on other posts, the problem is not the authors fault, the problem is lazy ass auto-voters. If you don't take the time to read, let alone even see someones article, then you shouldn't be entitled to upvote. (personal opinion)
Oh, totally agree, i was being somewhat facetious, hence the ;) at the end.
Upvoters, bots... its all a big problem on here as we know.
Reward should be made at a level based on the combination of of natural talent and effort - effort in both the creation and curation sense. (but i guess you could have a natural talent for curation too).
If up-voting was "fair" then there would be no need for down-voting (as much).