While observing the whole controversy surrounding the use of flags over the past couple months, it hasn’t been upon me to enter into this because I had nothing to say about it except an opinion. That has now changed, and I would like to make a proposition to the community.
While driving home from work this evening, something suddenly came to me that would not only bring resolution to the conflicts between different people over the use of flags, but would also create a sense of engagement for everyone.
Here is what I propose: Change the code of Steemit so that in order for someone to flag a post, they must first give their reason for flagging, and allow the author to appeal to a judge and jury that would be selected from the Steemit community. A series of invitations can be sent out, giving people the opportunity to fill these roles if they want.
The judge would ask a series of questions surrounding the post, and the reason for flagging, and the jury would decide the fate of the post. Besides being another social media platform, this would make Steemit an instrument of justice where everyone has the potential to exercise righteousness to the benefit for another.
Any thoughts?
It's an interesting idea.
Part of the problem though is it is not really a flag, it is a downvote. Users are allowed to downvote for whatever reason they want, including if they think the post is getting paid to much (in their subjective opinion).
It sounds like there are plans to revamp the flags / downvotes, but that is on hold until after communities are implemented. Until then, we are pretty much 'stuck' with the current implementation.
I think it's a great idea.
I am going to think more about this too.
I always love seeing the people who make the trending pages in the $50...70.... $130 range, while everyone else is getting flagged and censored and everyone at the top is ok with a few of their friends making it past the gates
I watch things a lot closer here, than people realize I do and you do not need to be an IT guy, to see a lot of who, and what --- keeps "making the grade"
The issues I see with this, and other ones dealing with elected people, is that it removes the authority from the individuals to arbitrate the issues themselves and without that responsibility then the judges will be targeted and the board. Another issue that creeps up is that creating positions of power will undoubtedly lead those that crave power to seek and abuse those positions, and those that would be best at being impartial and actually use the power responsibility aren't necessarily interested in such power/abilities. I think mediaries can be wonderful, but the parties seeking mediation over issues should chose and agree on the mediaries and should not be forced or coerced in any kind of decision regarding their choices.
I agree totally. Theses are issues that would need to be taken into consideration if the platform came to the point of implementing my proposal.
Then you'd take away the whale's fun.
If I were a whale, I'd consider it a blast.
I wrote a couple long comments about flags/downvotes here:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@whatageek/open-discussion-how-do-we-get-rid-of-flags-but-stop-spam
The issues that I see are not in implementing what I suggest, they are in incentivizing large SP holders to keep their vests and acquire more.