You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Discontinuing my daily statistics posts
@dantheman, why should it be necessary or logical to "cap" the payout reward. Doesn't the platform take care of this through the built-in incentives? If users value the content they upvote. If they don't value it, they don't upvote it. I don't see the point in flagging content because someone doesn't think other people should value it. All we're doing here is directing the faucet, so to speak. Whether or not specific content is more deserving should not be the point of the flagging system IMHO. Flagging is for content that is abusive, stolen, obscene, spam, etc.
The Oragami ones are cool. One should do what he/she is good at! MasterYoda is good at stats.
I vote on both. Well I used to. What will you be posting next masteryoda?
What do you mean used to? Did you not get the message, there are no new voting limits or weight changes. Vote away!
oragami posts worth hundreds, analytics break downs not acceptable?
who is working for Soros on the Steem team?
Agreed, sounds fishy that someone is downvoting Steem data, only reason could be that they are hiding the falling payouts.
it was @ned
no joke!
Flagging was originally downvoting, which as the whitepaper describes, was intended as a tool to bring down over-inflated rewards. Our vote weight is supposed to be able to both say "I think this should be rewarded more" and "I think this should be rewarded less".
I think it would be ideal to have some smarter voting options available. For example, "I think this deserves $X. My vote will count towards it up until the point of $X, but not further".
I think after they changed downvoting to flagging, they should have revised the whitepaper to say flagging was for spam only. Reducing payouts seems to be censoring BS to me. If a user doesn't get paid anymore, chances are they may stop posting.
they did not change downvoting to flagging. They changed a graphic in the UI. AFAIK, nothing at all changed on the steem blockchain.
The front end change has resulted in a semantic change for the community. Especially with the guidance added on SteemIt.com, about flagging being for abuse. This change in philosophy was never implemented consistently even among the founders though.
Stakeholders are entitled to believe, express and vote that a post is being given too large a share of the rewards pie. To disallow or discourage votes which say "this is rewarded too highly" is censorship in itself.
I don't think @ned got the memo that flagging is only for spam, and not to be used to censor people.