Just sitting here quietly, thinking ... mmmmm ..
This is a comment on the idea of Opting In/Out of another users ability to upvote you, or to flag you ..
It is a highly destructive path to take, on a road to nowhere ... where everyone is silencing everyone else, and nobody ends up with anything, in the bitter end ..
Do not get sucked in to championing easy solutions to complex problems ..
.. without properly considering the long-term consequences.
Networks of people holding grudges against other networks of people holding grudges ... one big disfunctional web of animosity, permanently in a state of re-routing due to communication failure.
How fun does that sound!?
P.S.
.. beginning to suck .. someone wake up and do something about it. :) Have a nice day.
Downvotes aren't bad — They're free speech. They just need to be represented in the UI differently to reduce the emotional burden associated with the payout amount decreasing.
Heck, even somehow indicating that the payout amount shown is "estimated" could help.
If someone wants to downvote something they can always take the time to write a comment like any other venue. Take a news article, magazine article, a book, a painting, a sculpture. People can make negative comments but only on steemit does someone have the ability to reach into someone else's wallet and pull cash out when a lot of people may really like what the content provider does or says. Case in point - ask a Russian, the people who really got Marxism going if they like it. The answer is a vast majority of "NO!"
It's not reaching into your wallet if you don't own the stake yet. Hence the word "pending" and my suggestion of marking it as an "estimate".
Also, downvotes have the effect of increasing every other payout, due to the fact that there is a finite reward pool for a given period. Therefore, a downvote benefits everyone who is posting because the stake voting for them becomes more influential.
That's not to say I don't understand the ire of users who are getting noticing when they get downvoted. Not only do they have to deal with loss aversion which is stressful (because the UI makes it look like they already have earned the value of their pending post payout), but that negative symbol in the list of voters also makes it seem like someone is "personally attacking" you.
If you can get past those 2 points, I think it's a valuable feature. And you can certainly reduce the impact of them with clever UI design.
How about this? How about competition without any of that? How does that sound?
Downvotes had a positive effect when whales started canceling each other's votes out with them. That was a period of high engagement and regular user's stake being worth more.
That momentum is being lost by the hardfork rewards refill at the moment, as users don't see their stake having the same effect anymore. Hopefully after 3 more weeks we'll be back to normal again.
It just goes to show you a good application of what is perceived as a bad feature.
These are great comments .. and very good points! There has been much discussion on Discord Steemspeak about this, and this Opt In/Out idea was one of many that were floated - I personally do not like it, but everyone has made great arguments for all options proposed.
What is clear is that 'something' must be done - I like jeff's idea that .. sure! downvote something, go ahead, and then explain why .. there is no need for it to have a negative impact on rewards or a person's reputation - that is just punitive bs. However, it is also correct that we need to have some mechanism to contain abusive application of flags, or organized rewards theft, plagiarism, that kind of thing .. orrrr .. do we? ;-) Some are arguing that we do not, that there are other means .. or blockchain rules must be adjusted so people can not abusively flag, or gain too great a share of rewards ( this is where I feel the effort should be made).
Yes, @robrigo is correct .. The Experiment was a great success .. it felt good to give a 5 cent upvote on a comment, as I wish I could do on all of yours .. hopefully we will regain some of that capability when the pool refills.
Cheers guys!
All I saw was money taken away from myself and others. Did not like. I am an excellent architect->developer->systems analyst->programmer with loads of experience and I think it is juvenile
The root of your dissatisfaction is not understanding the system correctly. That's a bitter pill to swallow.
No money is taken away, none at all @robrigo is correct, what you see before payout are payout estimates with the following conditions:
From the white paper, section "Voting on Distribution of Currency"
Converse to what you've said here, the attitude of entitlement is juvenile.
juvenile is the right descrip .. flagging just because you can is def something a child would do. If however someone has good reason, then they should take a moment and explain so it can be responded to, in hopes that the flag might be removed upon explanation.
Shared because I agree 😄
yeah cover up as much as you can so the shit is bearable, the smell will stay the same :|
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Apr 08. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $0.37 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Apr 08 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P
LOL! I hear you .. I understand why you believe it is a good idea, and it is.. but just short-term - it feel it would greatly degrade the econ over time.