Upvotes Benefit the Upvoter - Downvotes Should 'Cost'
Disincentivizing Abuse ..
The best way to 'control' flagging is for it to cost the person who wishes to use their power, to negatively impact another user. The 'cost' can be burned, in the same way that the dysfunctional Promote feature has, which supposedly has a benefit to the economy.
If you feel so strongly about something, you should be willing to put your money where your hammer is.
In Combination with the Above ..
There should be a way for individuals to voice their displeasure with posts, that only has a visual effect.
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the second half of Apr 13. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $0.71 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Apr 13 - Part II. 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.
Interesting if we could have a dislike button. Not sure if I would use it. I don't like to send any kind of negative vibes out
Me too mamma .. my reaction in the past has been to MUTE and move on, but shutting people out permanently is against the spirit of the thing, but for those who feel so moved it would be good if there were a means by which they could show their dissatisfaction / discomfort, or give warning to potential readers, without hurting the author .. but also to have the ability to be harmful, at a cost.
Thank you for the feedback!
Generally, the only reason I flag content is if I find it to be inappropriate or offensive. And even in those cases I will unfollow and mute the offender rather than flag. I am all for people having the freedom to post what they want and for me having the freedom to not see things that offend me. The mute button seems to accomplish both in the least harmful way. I have no interest in using the flag function in order to diminish someone else's rewards even if I don't think they deserve their rewards. That's not really my business. So if people are using the flag for the purpose of diminishing another user's rewards, then it makes sense to me that it should cost the flagger the same amount as it costs the flag recipient. If the flag is being used as a way to alert to truly inappropriate content, then in that case I don't think it should cost the flagger. So, it's possible that we need two types of flags--one specifically to flag inappropriate content, and another to mess with other people's rewards. The first one is free to use and not sure what its impact to the recipient should be--maybe a mark on their profile to help others choose whether or not to follow them?. The second one you have to put money into in the same measure that you seek to use it to rob someone else.
wise words @wiser .. thanks!
Agreed.
Personally I think Flagging should be banned.
DownVotes should be a separate thing.
But your idea has merit.
cheers everitt .. I think that flagging was a method of game balancing, initially, but what it was meant to prevent it has not, and can not .. namely rewards jacking.
appreciate the response sir
it's a problem, apparently many agree. Hopefully it can be resolved.
you're welcome.
Seen this several times and I support it. Resteemed 👍 @sneak let this become a proposal please 🙏
cheers @personz .. it def can't be worse than what we have :)