You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: In defence of fiction on Steemit
I have said it once and I'll say it again, this ability for ONE (or a few) person(s) to downvote a post and potentially destroy the payout is absolutely ridiculous. It should be based on the number of downvotes not the financial power of said downvoters.
I don't agree necessarily. If upvotes are weighted based on stake, then downvotes likewise should be weighted. However, there should be standards for how and when flags are to be used. The whitepaper needs to be editing to take out disagreements over rewards. That, more than anything else, has opened the door to this kind of abuse.
I don't believe upvotes should be based on stake either, again, it should be based on popularity or a derivative of that, anything than the whale chasing, circle jerk we have currently.
this is not democracy...
neither is being down-voted by one person something that you could call democracy
What i meant is that if everyone had the same power (democracy), the blockchain would be of no value. Its important to understand the fundaments of the blockchain prior to throwing invalid arguments
Or it's entirely possible that a blockchain that provides equal power to anyone that uses it would be the most valuable one in the world.
It theoretically is possible you’re correct. And I would love to see someone trying that approach so we could measure the difference. I though am convinced that it wouldn’t work. Maybe I’m wrong...
Why are you convinced that it wouldn't work?
Don't you think it's more efficient to downvote something you don't like and upvote what you like?
It's all about the sigma attached to the "flag" (used to be downvotes). I didn't actually flag the author I suppressed some of the votes from others who upvoted too much.
By public outrage, declaratory statements, and, if necessary, flagging abusers. Establishing community standards can, and does, happen organically. Moreover, social pressure can exert an extremely powerful force on preventing behavior generally regarded as negative or abusive.
I'd also like to add that the behavior actually has to be abusive. Someone getting noticed by a whale, without fraud or some sort of collusion, is not abusive. Arguing that their popularity and viewership is insufficient to warrant that kind of reward is the height of arrogance.
It's not currently organic. I have not and will not downvote someone for the fear of retribution. We have cases where someone said something a whale didn't like and that whale downvoted every single post the person created. Destroying any sort of profit he could make. The person had to leave the platform and the whale kept on whaling.
I agree it's not organic at the moment. That's why others who are willing to take that risk, like myself and others, have to step up to the plate and speak out. It's likely going to hurt, but that's the risk you run.
Can't silence me forever. If I have to post the same sort of message dozens of times a day to overcome the destruction of the previous posts, I'll do it. I'd rather focus my time and effort on delivering quality posts, but if that's what it takes, that's what it takes.
And that's exactly my point, you shouldn't have to risk anything. For steem to become mainstream, I believe, it needs to fix this glaring issue
The only way I see us doing that without reverting to a centralized system is for some of us to take the hits and expose the behavior for what it is: self-serving abuse.
Good on you for 'taking the hit'. But for me personally, i didn't come here to be abused. I can get enough of that in the real world. So I don't flag, I don't argue, and mostly now, I don't post.
Hmm voter suppression much?
If you don't like something, just leave it alone. Nobody is forcing you to read it or vote on it. Do what I do, just ignore it.
If fiction wasn't a good fit for Steemit, people wouldn't be reading the fiction.
In my opinion, Steemit isn't just an echo chamber for cryptocurrencies. To make it so makes it no better than facebook, which is just used for cat pictures and anti-trump messages.
Just between you and me, you aren't the only determining factor in what is valuable. I don't vote on Crypto stuff, since that's not what interests me. I vote on arts, science, fiction, stories,photos, and I try to uplift other creators of content.
Why can't steemit be about everything? Let the people decide what they want to spend their SD on?
My take is that nothing that doesn't harm steemit should be flagged. Period. Nothing that provide quality and used human thinking and brainpower should be given the negative feedback of a flag. If you don't like/agree, then pick the 3rd option: Do nothing. Ignore. Personally I consider the reward distribution is broken and I see posts with far less work put into them making X100 times of what I make with my tiny minnow account of 250 followers. But I don't want to see my share getting increased at the expense of another content creator. As an Austrian Economist I believe value is subjective. As a human being I believe in positive and negative feedback. As a content creator on steemit. I believe no productive hard working content creator should be given negative feedback. Save the flags for spammers and etc. If you want to know what kind of posts I want to see flagged, please visit this link: https://steemit.com/steemit/@miti/my-commitment-to-making-steemit-a-place-free-from-spammers I have no connection with @miti other than a common ground on what should be flagged. Thanks for reading. @vimukthi
Exactly! I've commented this on multiple places. https://steemit.com/@vimukthi/comments My take is that since flagging is a negative feedback, it should only be used against what diminish the value of steemit. Austrian economics understand that value is subjective. Flagging shouldn't be used to decide on the value but to decide whether the content is harmful or not. Eg: Spam, Plagiarism, Piracy, gaming the system with low shallow content coupled with upvote bots etc. If someone creates value, such posts shouldn't be flagged. Period. If you don't like it; Don't upvote. Pretty much all these problems arise due to lack of opt-in constitution. Whitepaper is simply about tech. DPoS is Great. Steemit is working great. But unlike other blockchain projects, steemit claims to be proof of brain. If any productive post/comment is flagged, it defeats the entire point of steemit. Save the flags for spammers. Here is a great initiative by @miti. He/she is doing the flagging thing right and I fully support it. Please take a look: https://steemit.com/steemit/@miti/my-commitment-to-making-steemit-a-place-free-from-spammers
You could just create an army of sub-accounts and be the "wealthiest" person in both upvotes and downvotes. Before coming to such a conclusions I’d advice you to study the Blockchain further and make such a statements when you can back them up with technical solutions... Flags are here for a reason. It’s totally in anyone rights to deem the article as overrated, or when a reward-pool-rape is spotted (someone has created sub accounts and is circling over 100 bucks in rewards on every single post he makes) there needs to be a tool to stop it. Whoever invests in the platform the most can also lose the most, therefore has bigger power. This will NEVER change. You will either have to make peace with the fact or leave:)