I believe the main problem with the reward system is how much "whale" votes count. If there was a cap, it would be more democratic for the average user to have some real impact on the platform.
I very much agree on that level... but it still doesn't address the issue at hand (IMHO).
Even if a cap is introduced, what if one is to put out articles about gay rights, or religion, or holistic lifestyles? Should those articles be DEVALUED simply because one disagrees with them??
I know it wasn't a high earner for you (LOL - I'm there now with this post!), but what if your Ode to CoffeeHAD been? And me, disliking coffee (in this example), I downvote or flag your article because I don't want to drink coffee and so, by extension, I don't want ANYONE to drink coffee, and in the process curb your earnings or even prevent people from seeing your article at all...
The question I ask you is:
Do I have the right to affect you in such an intimate way for such a trivial reason?
"Do I have the right to affect you in such an intimate way for such a trivial reason?"
Well, it all depends, IMO, on how much your opinion affects my overall reach. If one flag obliterates my post, than I fully agree with you.
But, thinking a bit outside the box, maybe flagging should also have a validation system, just to prevent what you mentioned. What do you think about that?
In every message board I've ever participated in, flagging is never immediate action but just that: a flagging for a moderator to take a look at the post to determine if it needs to be censored due to terms of service violation OR if it is just blatant trolling that needs to be kicked to the curb.
Should flagging have a validation system?
IMHO: Absolutely!
...But still! The question I am reaching for here is: Do YOUR posts deserve to be DEVALUED because people disagree with them?
In your post, you start it off saying:
"Well, it all depends..."
What I'm hearing you say is: even if on a small cent-sual level, you WANT to DEVALUE other people's posts if you disagree with them AND also be open to having OTHERS dislike your post and DEVALUE it in return?
I'm all for flagging - but for it being what it is supposed to be about rather than it taking on the likeness and image of a downvote --- which IMHO strictly shouldn't exist.
IF this is about subjective content, the very act of DEVALUING someone else's viewpoint translates into this becoming a flame war steemit-style... And what I mean by this is: flags for all, lots of petty downvoting, and a bunch of users sitting around feeling like they just wasted precious hours DEVALUING when they could have been CREATING...
...This is what you meant, isn't it?
Or have I misinterpreted your meaning?
Would you be willing to explain further? Simply for the sake of discussion? :-)
I believe the main problem with the reward system is how much "whale" votes count. If there was a cap, it would be more democratic for the average user to have some real impact on the platform.
I very much agree on that level... but it still doesn't address the issue at hand (IMHO).
Even if a cap is introduced, what if one is to put out articles about gay rights, or religion, or holistic lifestyles? Should those articles be DEVALUED simply because one disagrees with them??
I know it wasn't a high earner for you (LOL - I'm there now with this post!), but what if your Ode to Coffee HAD been? And me, disliking coffee (in this example), I downvote or flag your article because I don't want to drink coffee and so, by extension, I don't want ANYONE to drink coffee, and in the process curb your earnings or even prevent people from seeing your article at all...
The question I ask you is:
Do I have the right to affect you in such an intimate way for such a trivial reason?
"Do I have the right to affect you in such an intimate way for such a trivial reason?"
Well, it all depends, IMO, on how much your opinion affects my overall reach. If one flag obliterates my post, than I fully agree with you.
But, thinking a bit outside the box, maybe flagging should also have a validation system, just to prevent what you mentioned. What do you think about that?
In every message board I've ever participated in, flagging is never immediate action but just that: a flagging for a moderator to take a look at the post to determine if it needs to be censored due to terms of service violation OR if it is just blatant trolling that needs to be kicked to the curb.
Should flagging have a validation system?
IMHO: Absolutely!
...But still! The question I am reaching for here is:
Do YOUR posts deserve to be DEVALUED because people disagree with them?
In your post, you start it off saying:
"Well, it all depends..."
What I'm hearing you say is: even if on a small cent-sual level, you WANT to DEVALUE other people's posts if you disagree with them AND also be open to having OTHERS dislike your post and DEVALUE it in return?
I'm all for flagging - but for it being what it is supposed to be about rather than it taking on the likeness and image of a downvote --- which IMHO strictly shouldn't exist.
IF this is about subjective content, the very act of DEVALUING someone else's viewpoint translates into this becoming a flame war steemit-style... And what I mean by this is: flags for all, lots of petty downvoting, and a bunch of users sitting around feeling like they just wasted precious hours DEVALUING when they could have been CREATING...
...This is what you meant, isn't it?
Or have I misinterpreted your meaning?