You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: One quote that SHOULD define your downvote strategy on Steemit
It's a flag for a reason, IMO.
If we want to create a separate system which allows for downvotes which don't impact reputation but do impact payout, I'm not fundamentally against that. But using a flag as a "downvote" when it can also cause someone's reputation to go down and have their content hidden seems heavy-handed to me. Flagging the trolls and the abusers, I have no problem with. Beyond that, let's have respectful dialogue about are disagreements. That's my opinion, anyway.
Good stuff, Blake.
Thats a damn good point on the 'flag' term vs 'downvote' term. I think the delineation there is important, especially for new users.
Hmm.. and if the option to adjust voting power comes into play, we could have fractional upvotes/downvotes (while flags still operating simultaneously against spam).
Something tells me I'll never have to worry about respectful dialogue during disagreements with you, @lukestokes :)
Thanks Blake. That's certainly my intention. There's enough drama in the world. We need more people taking the Greek approach of improving ourselves through constructive dialogue instead of being in a "debate" with winners and losers. I was really impressed with how you kept your calm debating Tone because sometimes... man, sometimes it's just hard to be calm and respectful. :)
Good point about the win/lose debate... though I would honestly like to see some sort of debate structure on Steemit, almost like a gameshow of sorts on the platform that challenges people to engage each other (but still maintaining the Greek approach throughout). Just a loose thought I've had about that since that debate :P
As far as staying calm, theres a sense of added calm that washes in on me at times when tension rises... usually. Sometimes I'm caught flat footed (usually with the wife :P), but when I'm very confident in my knowledge on a topic I can sense when I get into 'the zone'. I could probably pick out the moment it happened in the debate around the time the subtle ad hominems started slipping out.
Hah, that's funny you mention that because I noticed those moments too. Those were the ones I was so surprised at. Like when he cut you off and told you you were not qualified to answer the question that was just asked of you. I was like, "WUT? Did that just happen?"
Hehehe. I just watched the @dollarvigilante interview with Tone tonight as well. At least at the end he left the door open to being wrong in the future.
I completely agree with your comment, Luke. I think flagging is an extreme action. If I see an author with content that I don't like, I just stop reading his or her posts. But I recognize that others might like their content. In theory, a downvote button sounds good. But since it would take money away from a writer, I wonder if some people wouldn't abuse it?
I'm not a fan of downvotes either. If we acted that way in real life, society would be terrible. We don't go around telling people how much we dislike whatever it is they are doing, we shouldn't do it here either. Some art, I'm not at all a fan of. Does that mean I should protest outside the art gallery or figure out some way to lower the auction cost of the art? That's just silly.
That said, I also recognize the game theory aspects of the whales upvoting bad content for their own profit which then lowers the perceived value of the network for everyone. Yes "bad content" is subjective, but I see the reasons behind the "up votes can be abusive too" rationale. I'm hopeful we'll find a good balance over time.
I'm hoping that because it's a new community and concept, that some of the inequities will be worked out over time. We'll have to wait and see.
Dan just posted on downvotes. Good post, worth reading.