downvoting from anyone that reduces payout because they think the post isn't deserving is wrong
Another comment I want to promote and get rewarded. 100% of the total STEEM, SP and SBD will be transferred to @reddust after payout.
P.S. I have long wanted resteem to work for comments... probably not viable, but it would help get comments more visible. I sometimes like a comment more than I do a post.
What about a comment tab? That is obvious to many people as a very efficient way to allow us to get access to comments.
From @reddust:
I don't mind market ups and downs reducing payouts but downvoting from anyone that reduces payout because they think the post isn't deserving is wrong. It demoralizes content creators and shuts people like me up because I often question consensus, now I feel speaking out against authority here is going to impact my payout and I'm going try and stay with what is agreed on as PC material. People upvoted on a post and downvoting takes away upvoters powers and reduces curation payouts and it doesn't cost the down voter anything.
This is why FB does not have dislikes, Because people can ruin someone for the hell it, a disagreement of view or a grudge. You could have 400 upvotes and a whale totally reduces the rights of the up-voters. Or a weighted stakeholder disagrees with an ideology or a trend that is important to a group of people can be disapeared by one downvote. So basically whales or stakeholders are the moderators of payout, rather than the upvote judging someone's talent, quality of content, or trend. A downvote is highly subjective just like an upvote, but down vote from a weighted stake holder reduces the payout so much, this does not sound like a free market, one person could have a bad day and ruin a person or group of people's view of Steemit.
Decouple downvote from payout.
The flag is detrimental to an actual social media or social networking site unless it is used responsibly for specific reasons that improve the site, such as plagiarism, spam, etc. When a concentrated group of people decide who can and can't get rewarded, this is highly deleterious to the success of the social networking and social atmosphere of a platform. The concentration of power is the root of the problem.
Solutions? Sure there are. Delegate power to the community, not a concentrated group of people. Invest into SP to see the value of STEEM increase, not because you want to control things with all your power. Let the community decide how to reward people, not 1, 2, 3,... or 50 users who have the concentration of power.
The flag for rewards "could", "maybe" be better if it's the actual community that judges, not a concentrated group of people who decide who can and can't get rewarded. But I still don't see it as a positive when anyone can just do it. There are other solution for flagging, like only letting certain users who are active, and have shown they post/comment as part of community, and only allowing them to have the power to flag. But not basing it on SP alone in an account through sock puppets. Only real users in the community could use the flag because they are part of the community. Or a flag report button instead for issues with posts rewards, or plagiarism, one thing or all things for flagging. There are options. Let's be imaginative and think of better ways to have the flag on the platform so that it is more a positive than a negative.
All other things apart, it seems that some of the issue is psychological, rather than functional.
Let's consider that "flagging" has a globally negative connotation pretty much web-wide-- it's typically a term describing describing something "abusive" in some way; keyword spam, plagiarism, spun content, abusiveness, duplication, copy/paste, clickbait and more.
Let's, for a moment, create a hypothetical in which flagging is a separate function from upvote/downvote. That takes away the hurt feelings over "I got flagged!"
Voting, then, becomes a process of somewhat qualitative and subjective content evaluation, kind of like going on Yelp and giving feedback on a restaurant you went to. Is the content worth something to me, or to the community, or both (hopefully)? I see lots of good content that I have no interest in, or don't agree with... but I can still recognize it as "having value."
Similarly, when I come across a post that simply reads "I wrote this post to make some money, please upvote, comment and follow me" I can probably make a determination that my time was just wasted, and I can downvote it.
Let's get back to the Yelp example... Let's say you actually like Billy Bob's Burgers, but don't think Billy Bob deserves their 5-star consensus rating, so you give it one star, even though you like the burgers... that doesn't really make sense, since you evidently think Billy Bob actually makes 3.5 star burgers. The under-evaluation slides from simply "evaluating" over into the territory a personal statement about wanting things your way. Nothing to do with hamburgers.
The irony there, in this community that prides itself on NOT having the censorship issues of Facebook and Google, is that such kinds of downvoting flirts with the borders of being a different kind of censorship.
Rules. Otherwise, people don't think like that. It's just, "I don't think it deserves that reward other people allocated, so I'm removing rewards". It nullifies the reward attribution other's want to give something, all because one power players says so. The reward removal can be done much better indeed, which is what I wanted at first. But now I see the whole flagging as an issue that should be reserved for active community members that prove themselves, and not based on the power of who has the most SP. N more concentration of power to decide who gets what, but the empowered community. It is a different kind of censorship indeed.
There's also a level of narrow-mindedness there; of not really thinking and understanding the nuances and implications of an action.
It's like going on Amazon and wondering why a blender I'm considering has a 1-star review. Clicking on the review and reading "UPS took 3 weeks to get this to me! Terrible service! Two thumbs down!"
I can appreciate the frustration, but that doesn't have JACK to do with whether it's a good blender or not. And now I feel slightly P.O.'d because you just WASTED my time by having a fit that has nothing to do with anything. And I still need a blender...
Yeah... I've seen that too lol.
In here it's "content? who cares"
"your post is too long"
"you dont have enough views yet"
"this person voted on it and I dont like them"
"i dont like you"
"i dont like this post topic"
Whatever to not actually evaluate the content for content, but find some extraneous reason to shit on it... lol.
I've liked your understanding of things since your first comments on my posts or your first posts, I forget how we first interacted (but I think it was a comment on my post where you demonstrated an understanding of the importance of content to drive a site). Can you contact me at [email protected] for further communication outside of strictly posts/comments? Thanks!
Email on its way...
but sjw's :D
I disagree and think this this post and this post by @demotruk are great counter arguments, better than I could make it, especially the idea that up / down voting should be seen as a way to influence how much you think a post should be worth, not a measure of how "good" or "bad" it is, or your are an author.
To quote from the second, earlier post:
They then go on to outline a proposal for "Payout Recommendations", which is interesting and it gets to the core of what down voting because of payout is really about.
Yes, I agree, we need to rename flagging with DOWNVOTE, remove the ridiculous invented as we go along list of reasons immediately, and instead of dressing up downvote as a flag, a purely cosmetic thing that creates confusion, we need to explore ways to deal with flagging itself, how do we go about as a community? Can we have another value added to the blockchain that won't affect payout but only visibility? I don't believe that by enacting admins, or by creating the ever problematic scenarios of figures of authority, rule makers and enforcers and ultimate arbiters, we will ever resolve it in a system centered around decentralization, the power needs to be in the hands of users everywhere. Maybe make the visibility mark equal across the board so that anybody as the power to hide content from the community and even if they can abuse it we will need to deal with the abuse in turn instead of running away screaming "it only creates more problems" because visibility can and should be countered by everyone else other than the author.
Indeed, I am for removing flagging from everyone by default, and only allowing it for active users who are part of the community, and then we all have the ability to deal with abuse. Then sock puppet accounts can't just have SP and go flagging. AND the flagging won't be base don SP, just like the upvotes won't be. Everyone will have equal ability to influence content and be driven by the community. STEEM and SP is investment to earn as the value grows, your investment grows. And the community is what grows it. SO why would a concentrated group of people be in charge of what the community can or can't do if the community are actually the one's who grow the community and the content? Concentration of power needs to go! Thanks for the feedback.
Yes and hopefully that will mark the exit of all these sockpuppets that people give their posting key to for mindless abuse to "not waste my voting power brah" stfu with that rhetoric, we need real people, making real decisions, not code to run the users away by the perpetuation of the disparaging votes to view ratio and the fact that nobody can compete with a machine for rewards without becoming another stupid non caring machine, this is a social media platform first, this isn't just a crypto "currency", and turning away from the mindless voting/mining for steem is probably the first step in the right direction: attracting more people=more value for those that invested.
Thanks for the feedback. Check out: SCD #7 - Working Towards a Decentralized Self-Governance of the Steemit Community
The upvotes and downvotes have to be based on SP. This is one of the core tenet Steem is based on. Ultimately what we risk on is our life.
so if @krnel had simply accepted being flagged to reduce rewards, and kept on blogging without making any drama about it, he/she would have been much better off surviving on steemit, as "those who act poorly shrink" and "those who act wisely grow in influence"
First of all I want to make this clear, @krnel is one of my favorite author and one of the person I most identify with and he knows this as I made it clear to him in the past. He's the author I've read the most.
The situation is a complex one and yes it's true that time could have help. Not everything happen instantaneously. Also nothing is clear as night and day. I understand both sides.
Ultimately we should strive to uplift and unite. I think we should always consider trying to convince rather than to confront if confrontation can be avoided.
Also its good to read from you Craig. You should do more written articles.
When one has worked very hard on nine posts in a row, without earning rewards worthy of their efforts, they can begin to lose their motivation.
Then when the tenth one they have posted finally receives rewards they are over the moon and their inspiration restored.
Then... A whale comes along and downvotes that post thinking it is undeserving, and the inspiration is gone. Now the person begins to produce inadequate content because they no longer want to make the effort to post their best work knowing that when it finally gets rewarded, it can still be taken away.
This is why we have seen a decline in quality on Steemit, and why the "flagging for disagreement on rewards" is directly responsible.
Absolutely. It has affected me even before I got hit with flags for being overrewarded. It's part of psychology and comparative assessment of work others do, like in a job. If you fellow workers get paid the same for doing less work, this promotes the "unionized" type of socialist communist working towards the lowest common denominator. Quality of work matters to motivate people to get rewarded. Then people want to argue that quality is subjective and blah blah. They don't understand how it works in the real world. Thank you for the great feedback!
Half of that happens because people are rightly concerned with another real world problem: teachers pet.
When only one student participates it disincentives others in the same way, to address that problem of playing favorites a downvote should be much more welcomed purely to object to the payout, it's not that they are right at all, because we know that it's far more rewarding to vote some other post as counter to that teachers pet content than to downvote and subsequently remove value from that post. We cannot stop that from happening in the code, we cannot remove downvoting from the code, we can change it, we can inform people of exactly the consequences of their actions, we can even limit the payout of certain posts and allow others to have a larger portion of the reward pool, but we cannot remove it. I agree that downvoting for those reasons is destructive to the community, but I believe that because it is seen as a flag to begin with, and that because the downvote carries opposite but equal weight (maybe a formula could be used to limit the extent of a downvote) to an upvote it only adds to the destructive aspect.
See this: Why Flagging Is Bringing Down The Value of Steem, As A Currency for why downvoting for rewards and flagging are an issue overall.
See my explanation of the problem and solution: SCD #7 - Working Towards a Decentralized Self-Governance of the Steemit Community
Thank you ever so much for the kind gesture.
Upvoting, resteeming and if I had the funds to promote thisl I would.
Guys here's the truth.
If you have enough power that your flag or vote matters it means you have invested money in steem.
Each time you flag over rewards you are devalueing not only that post but your own investment as well.
Why? Because it's demoralizing to the people who are on the receiving end of that. They give up, they leave if they have any steem they are going to dump it and they are going to let their friends know. "Hey guys be careful over at steemit, there are individuals who like to power trip and it's worse than a power hungry redditor because it costs real money".
This keeps people away. It makes the entire platform unattractive and unpalatable. With no one coming to steemit no one is going to buy steem. The bottom will drop out and your currency will be worthless.
All you have to do is UPVOTE CONTENT YOU THINK IS WORTHY.
Don't be a petty douchebag just because it's easier. Seek out content you like and upvote it. Quit worrying about what the other guy is earning, frankly it's none of your business.
Thanks for the feedback.
I want to argue that if we have more reality reflective and descriptive labels for those actions that the confusion and disagreement won't happen:
Miscommunication leads to complication! Lauryn Hill speaks that truth with that.
We can call it a downvote, as it is such, or call it a flag/abuse button, but if it acts like a downvote AND a flag, and if it looks like a downvote AND a flag but is called a flag then it won't matter what it's used for, everyone will call it a flag, regardless of the fact that it's only a downvote.
A flag should not be something tied to SP, no user should have more or less say in flagging. As an act that requires a real definition and not a convoluted list of ever changing reasons that creates this confusion flagging should be equal opportunity, everyone but the author should be able to vote on the content as purely a flag, and in case of abuse allow the community to vote against the flag and against the flag-er itself as well, and tie it into the rep system where only people over a certain rep can affect a flag and a counter flag.
In the same manner if it acts like a flag, if it looks like a flag, it should be called a flag.
I read Steemit white paper the summary was awesome.
An important key to inspiring participation in any community currency or free market economy is a fair accounting system that consistently reflects each persons contribution.
Steemit White Paper
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. Milton Friedman
What is a free market? It is a economic system where prices are determined by unfetered competition between privately owned businesses.
Yeah, and in a free market, you can't just go around saying, no that't not what it's worth and then down the price all on your own lol. If you don't want to buy it, then you don't. And as everyone stops buying it, it loses value and stop being made. Similarly, rewards are attributed to reward someone for their product created/worked for produce. Here's my vote. But some people don't have just one vote to cast in rewards to a product, they have 1,000,000 votes even though they are just one person, and they can just decide to not buy the product, but some want to decide they can remove votes to reward a product based on nothing other than their desire to see it not rewarded, meanwhile they go allocate votes for other products they want to reward that can objectively be demonstrated to add - future value to Steemit and are only successful because they play on gambling psychology to entice people to get something for nothing.
Does a community that gives votes to reward people for work done to produce value for the community from a community fund, want to support people who don't produce anything of value but run scammy free-lottery game-picks that take from that community pool? If you want to gamble, put up your own risk, and don't pay people out with the community rewards, but only pay them with the rewards that people pay into in that gambling crap.
I have a lot of written material here and there that I never coalesced and put out yet, so I really really get the problem here with this gambling crap.
In a truly free market the winners are what people will buy. But I think gambling, drugs, and porn need to be regulated but still legal, you know cut down on mafias. My husband's from the Netherlands lololol....
I've read several of your posts on this topic, but I love your consciousness and reality posts. I wish I was a whale, I'd be your benifactor.
Yeah... I used to have more support for the quality I bring... but... it seems to have gone *poof* for the most part. I put out video/audio on Belief and Speak Truth to Create Change... didn't get more support than my posts about newsy fluff stuff LOL. Ah well... thanks for the support!
We shall see how the wind blows, please keep producing stuff that makes me pull out my philosophy books and double check you!
Thanks! It's been hard with this battle going on, time and attention restricted. The more people that talk about this, the quicker we can resolve it. The less people that do, the longer it takes. I can't do anything on my own. We need to learn as a community and want to get involved to change things. All my main work since I got here is about that, to change velours as individuals in order to change the world. If only 5% of us want to get involved,then that's who will push forward to change things. Everyone else can do like regular society, and just sit by and do nothing. But I can't get people learn or want to get involved all on my own... It's very slow. More people need to care, get involved, and speak up to that more people learn about the issue and stop ignoring it and it snowballs to create the change we want. Thanks!
So true! Its basically content-shaming and it is BS! I could go on more elaborately but you already laid out the argument beautifully my friend!
Please do elaborate and explain if you have more to add. You too could end up having your comment featured and get rewarded :) No guarantee though hehe, but I'm trying to show that more and more people are understanding this issue, and it's not just KrNel for blah blah bullshit "reasons" these trolls come up with. Thank you for the feedback regardless! I appreciate the support!
Thank you for reposting my thoughts, I've been talking with people who have been on social sites for 15 years or more. I understand the social dynamics of groups like Steemit, I've been on social networks since the late 90s. Plus I'm a lover of history and how civilization do not thrive and or declines and go extinct. Steemit is failing to thrive because of only a few players holding most of the power.
When factoring in the ability to earn money through curation as well as posting content puts a complicated spin on the equation. I feel like I still haven't developed a good view of this new platform. I'm very excited being part of this experiment.
I think we need moderators nominated by the community for sure! How this is done and implimented, needs to be decided by the community.
YUP!!! Bingo.
Yes, I proposed that but it got flagged by these moronic whales who have the power, saying I was just "whining" in order to shut me up so they could jeep their power abuse going on.
Vote Negation? Flag Review Council? Other Solutions?
Thanks for the feedback.
I've seen this type of behavior by controllers or those who feel the need to control when someone speaks out, it's so common on the net. They start getting personal immediately in a very subtle way. Any aggressive move on the person defending their content and name will be made to look silly, crazy, or as people say here on this site...whiny.
The only way to avoid derailing this very important issue is don't get personal and stay on topic. I became really good at keeping on topic and using the force of attacks to promote what I felt was important.
I'd enjoy a trending comments tab.
Sure, have the option to sort it or something, but not even just trending, just all comments that are made being visible in a tab is needed to make them trending ;)
Maybe what is considered "hot" on the front page should be modified to actually mean what is resulting in active interaction with a topic.
I think flags and downvotes should be separated into different categories. Flag should hit reputation score but not payout, while downvotes should affect the payout. I've been thinking about this a lot since I first personally agressed against the whole idea of "hurting" someones pay. Since then I've seen posts that have clearly not been thought out and should not be valued as high they actually were, and I've been re-thinking my whole opinion on it.
I actually think it might be beneficial to everyone that anyone can freely choose to either upvote or downvote a post instead of just upvoting. Flags should be used for spam and incitement for violence and perhaps some of the worse kinds of darwin awards material.
Agreed I've been running the same things and coming up with the same ideas. Reputation should be there for something, and downvoting shouldn't be a issue, people should be able to if they wish, I think there should be a backlash, much like pressing charges on the "police" if people want to police and moderate the posts, they should be held accountable, not blame steem :D, still downvoting shouldn't a problem unless upvoting is bad :D
Flagging should be separate and it should be used for abuse.
I'm rotating some ideas around my head.
Same page here, downvoting should be downvoting, flagging needs it's own system apart from SP, while downvoting should be rethought insofar as to inform the user of it's actual consequences e.g. "You're using 100% Voting Power to Downvote/Remove Rewards from this post, this will bring the %ofrewardpoolalocatedtopost/comment down to %aftervoting"
Flags need to be enabled at a certain level, preferably low enough that a relative newbie can use the feature and it's function needs to be explained succinctly so that it cannot create confusion, e.g. "Flagging is reserved for abuse (bullying/trolling/flagging) and plagiarism. Minimum of 50 reputation to use this feature/Unlocked at 50 reputation. Flagging will negatively affect the authors reputation, and while it will hide the content it won't remove it. A flag can be countered it with a counter-flag, and a flag countered more than twice will affect the flaggers reputations. Authors cannot counter flag their own content."
Can't make your post visible :D
Anyways the flag should open an abuse "pool" afterwards a few "whales" should see if they think there is abuse, basically act like a jury on duty. Is this post really worth 500$ or is it really worth 50$(after downvote) for those astronomical downvotes for instance, still I don't think we should "tax" the system with extra layers, what happens should be natural and ran by humans, like what happened with karen, there was a huge uproar, and she got compensated, another example would be krnel stepping up but yeah its all about rewards. It's interesting to see how emotion influences people.
Krnel made a valid point, for everybody at that and what, well clearly he has a problem :D, I'm judging from the fact that the bigger fish just sidestepped the argument.
We are having a similar conversation here tonight https://steemit.com/steemitphotochallenge/@knight-angel/silent-steemit-assassin-stealing-steem-please-help
I assume he flagged it for the spelling error.
Its abbey.