Downvoting is a feature

For better or worse, downvoting is a feature of STEEM. And as a feature users can use it. Users can use it without having to justify their use.

Can people downvote for nefarious reasons? Sure.

Can people upvote for nefarious reasons? Sure.

That’s where we hope those who are heavily invested in STEEM are incentivised not to act in ways that will undermine the platform. I think for the most part this is the case. People just have different opinions of what constitutes undermining.

More downs than up

I’m not a fan of the downvoting. It causes more friction than it’s worth. A person on the receiving end of a downvote will inevitability harbour ill-will, regardless of the intention behind it. On the flip side people will sometimes see downvoting as their only recourse to bad practices. Be it plagiarism or voting practice that they perceive as harming the platform.

Another committee might work

I like the idea of a Flag Review Council. I'd like to see a group of people, voted in and incentivised (like Witnesses) to arbitrate on whether to flag a piece of content or author.

I’d like to see a Council operating within a narrow remit. If the community does not like the way the members of Council is arbitrating, like Witnesses they can be voted out and new ones who represent the Community voted in.

I think there are some content that most would agree merit flagging e.g. plagiarism or spammers. There are other situations that would probably merit more discussion (e.g. over-rewarding).

Users can decide how far down the muddied corridors of flagging debates and policy they wish to go without it being paraded like it's a core feature of the platform. In truth, flagging is a fringe feature with limited mass appeal.

Don't sweat the small stuff

From what I’ve seen there is nothing “bad” or “evil” happening on Steemit at the moment. If you think what is going on on this site is wicked or sinister, I’d say travel a little. Being deprived of a few dollars on a website that rewards people for posting content is small potatoes.

At worse, I’m seeing a dialogue that can be paraphrased as,
“You downvoted me? WTF? I sweat my balls off providing quality content for this site. Fuck You!”
“I’m downvoting you for the overall good of the platform. Fuck me? I’ll do what I want Fuck You too.”

Been there, done that

Believe me, I get it. I can see both sides.

I was here in May and watched “my” rewards shrink drastically, after I had mentally ‘banked’ the money. I’ve been on my rants too… threatened to do all sorts to the Dans and Neds of the platform…

Now I see myself as more of an investor, than an author and can see how some heavily investors in STEEM can look at a post/ poster as being ‘over-rewarded’, factoring in
How much does a post get?
How often does the author post? How much reward do their other posts attract? How much is the author raking in daily?
Are post rewards likely to go towards projects to enhance the platform?
What is the content? Will it help on-board users? Is it formulaic?
Is the post over-benefiting from lazy curation (or worse still collusive curation)? Is there similar (better) content missing out as a consequence?
Etc. etc.

Eventhough 'over-rewards' is not a particular bug-bear of mine. I can see how the issue is not black and white - good vs evil.

However all-in-all, it's childs play. Particularly when you consider the amounts involved and the prize at stake should STEEM get it right and achieve mass adoption.

Get a room

I’d like to see these flagging debates moved off-line and handled by a Council of moderators voted by the Community. The Council can make decision on flagging and publish the rationale behind any contentious decisions in a post. They can be held accountable through voting.

Hell, I cannot wait for Communities. This would certainly be a niche community ("Steemit Moderation") that I wouldn’t want a newbie to be exposed to unless they choose to go deep into the recesses of the inner workings of STEEM. I hope Steemit can become a "go-to" place for casual users to find exciting, new, provocative content. And where they can bag some rewards for their participation.

Frankly my dear...

The whole debate on who flagged who, “bad whales”, doing “evil” etc etc is of interest to no-one outside of a handful of people on this platform. It will help on board no-one. I dare say, the silent majority that are here, couldn’t give a hoot about who got flagged by whom. They'll deal with the "problem" of having their "over-rewards" curtailed when they get there!

Bottom line is… Let’s get rid of downvoting as a feature for individual users. My aunt won’t use it! Move the moderation and flagging of content to a back-office function. And leave the creative, interesting, informative, engaging content front-and-centre.

That’s all folks!