I think the single payout period simplifies the system which is a very good thing. On top of that, users who vote with their eyes and real time will have more time available to them to dispute what posts deserve more or less rewards in their eyes. If the cultural stigma attached to a down vote is successfully diminished we should still see different content at the top of the trending page every day - as the same post for the whole week would definitely be problematic. But I think with 6 extra days of voting this should be self correcting.
What if it's @krnel who gets downvoted? Or some other favorite of yours?
LOL. Are you trolling me now?
Legit question.
From out of nowhere. Maybe you're confused because I decided to call your friend smooth out on his hypocrisy.
So, you're not answering my question.
Maybe he's confused by the fact that you flag content when you don't like the rewards that such content is receiving, but then run to the defense of your preferred users when their content is flagged for the same reason by others.
Is that not also hypocrisy? I thought that a flag was "just a downvote" and that it shouldn't be taken so personally. If that's the case that you want to argue all the time, why do you get so upset when your preferred users are flagged?
These are legitimate questions to ask, given your own blog posts and comments on the matter.
For the record - I don't use the flag/downvote for rewards corrections (or pretty much anything, for that matter), so I have no dog in this fight. I think it's petty. If there is an actual abuse, then it needs to be addressed, otherwise, the adjustments should be made on the backend to mitigate "unfairness" (whatever we want that to mean) of stake-weighted rewards distribution.
Your question and nothing to do with the context of this article. Maybe you should put your question into some context so that I can understand where you're coming from and answer it.
@ats-david
There are several posts trending. Smooth was very selective in picking that one. He was clearly voting in retaliation and the reasons he gave were clearly bogus. It was not to reduce the rewards - if it were he would have flagged the posts above it with less interaction and views.
Smooth can flag for whatever reasons he likes. But if he's going to give a reason, he might as well be honest and say "Dan is downvoting my friend so I'm downvoting his friend".
The screenshot @schattenjaeger flagged was smooth admitting that he does not care about reward distribution - hence his reasons given being a lie.
I don't think stake weighted votes are "unfair". Do you?
You can't prove any of this. All speculation.
I can just as easily say that you only support flagging when you agree with it.
How do you know what his motivations were?
Unless that reason isn't good enough for you or happens to a post/user that you support?
Your arguments over the past month tell a different story. Most of the complaints are about whales being too destructive or "harmful" to the platform because they vote how they want with their stake. If flags/downvotes aren't to be taken personally, then why do you care so much about how those flags/downvotes are being used and how is this not a complaint about "unfairness?"
You flag whatever you want for whatever reason you conjure up and that's perfectly acceptable. A whale does it, and you complain incessantly about how they should be more responsible. This is an argument built on an inherent perception of unfairness.
Then again, you don't even complain about whales in general flagging content. You only complain about specific whales flagging content that you support. If you were defending @ozchartart or @masteryoda, I must have missed that.
So, what exactly is your argument? Because it seems to me that you're not the least bit consistent.
The screenshot you flagged was smooth admitting that he does not care about reward distribution - hence his reasons given being a lie.
That's not at all what he said. Quite the contrary: @smooth said that when people decline payouts, it's like upvoting everyone's posts, including bad posts. So, therefore, it's better to take the rewards and burn them afterwards, because then bad posts won't get rewards.
So, it's the complete opposite of what you just said.
That's the same as what reward re-distribution does through flagging
There's no better way currently.
So do we understand each other better now? Is your question answered? If you check @mrwang 's post you'll see that I nominated krnel as a douchebag for his reaction to being flagged. But in all honesty, smooth was just as childish.
@ats-david
It's quite clear to me that you do not want to make the effort to try to understand me. I am explaining and you are refusing to hear. There's nothing I can do about that, I would be wasting my time by entertaining you.
I did express to both these users that I have nothing against their content, just disagreeing with the value given by the upvotes. I express that with the downvote. As expressed already, I did not disapprove of smooths downvote. Just pointed out his blatant lie. (He contradicted himself in that comment and that was inconsistent).
If you're referring to the screen shot that you posted - that was addressed already. He - @smooth - was speaking about declining payout on a post. It was not about flagging.
If that's your argument, then it's quite clear to me that you do not want to make the effort to try to understand that. It has been explained and you are refusing to hear. There's nothing I can do about that and I would be wasting my time by entertaining you.