Sort:  

no idea. consensus perhaps? maybe a 'tipping point' before it takes effect? It might be something to look into and talk about with the devs.

I guess in the case of a "bad actor" who mis-files porn (or whatever), the mute button is still the ultimate tool... Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me! ;)

And so, having now (with your help) thought through this some more, I think I would not be for allowing others to "tag" my work with their own idea of what it is... If you don't agree with my tags, just mute me!

Beyond that, if each account had an easily read "mute counter," anyone could see how much ire a particular poster has raised - but they could still decide for themselves whether or not to pay them any attention.

sounds reasonable..don't forget reputation.
I find myself using it more and more to lend 'credibility' to how much I pay attention to a post.

Truth! - Someone who perpetually lies about their post will be very unlikely to develop a good reputation!

The 'tipping point' sounds good... some kind of "preponderance of evidence?"

I think I still mostly prefer the "mute" method and "tag muting" generally on the receiving end, but I suppose someone could even abuse that by, for instance, posting porn without tagging it NSFW...

oh no doubt. muting should always be on the receiving. It's not preventing someone else from posting...it's just ignoring them.
as far as the tagging..that needs to be thunk on...a misleading tag is a lie/fraud....bait switch/ clik bait..

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.15
TRX 0.16
JST 0.028
BTC 68668.50
ETH 2459.32
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.36