You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A call to separation of powers in Steemit
I think credit where it's due. Trolling and spamming seem to come naturally to all parts of the internet. Successfully controlling those issues is no small feat. I rather think the totalitarian bent is a byproduct of policing those annoyances. Improvements in governance could maintain a check on bad actors while limiting the power of individuals in the ruling class.
Even a small change to how flagging works might be key. We already have voting percentages.
I think this whole anyone can flag model is wrong, it would be better to use a report to moderators feature. After which a group of trusted moderators (witness like selection?) can vote to flag or not (as @ reddust mentioned in his comment). If a post is flagged by moderators, the reward should go to 0 directly with some impact on reputation as well. There is no such thing in my mind as partially flaggable content.
@dgiors I cannot reply to your comment directly because of the nesting limitations so I hope you’ll see my reply here. First I think flagging and downvoting should be two separate things. Flagging is for abusive content, downvoting is an expression of one’s opinion.
Flagging should have clear rules, and should not be subjective.
The main point I’m trying to make in this post, is that allowing Steemit inc related individuals to vote on content and witnesses is a clear conflict of interest.
Agreed except for the part about no such thing as partially flaggable.
We either need a downvote as an alternative to flagging or continue to use flagging in that capacity when it fits.
I'm thinking user downvote (or flag) should be nerfed quite a bit so that it's still the moderator's prerogative to literally take down a post.
I suppose if there were no user flagging the comments section would still provide a place for a dissenting view or feedback. The thing is if I see posts here offering unsafe medical advice or the like I want to not only speak out against it but cast a vote of no confidence.
Edit continued: But to a moderator two users with differing opinions about what's acceptable medical practice could only become viewed as biased whichever side they come down upon.
Can anybody be considered the oracle of all things true? Certainly no moderator should assume such a role.
So while upvote is a powerful tool for demarcating the wisdom of the crowd the ability to downvote should also come as an important tool for judging the social consensus.
I like your last 2 sentences. AGREED. Evolution not revolution - though that would be nice too :)
Bots would run wild I think with that one, wouldn't they?
I get your point. 9 puny bots could pave the way for a huge 100% vote. Then there must be another way.