Don't Be A Moby Dick! (Stop Whale Flagging)
Dear Whales,
We know you built this site with blood, sweat and tears. We know you are deeply invested. We know you want to make your investment pay off.
Please, Please quit flagging on disagreement over a topic, or the fair price of an article. You already hold the power to bring us riches or .... NOT. Please use your upvotes to influence what you want to see on the site. Due to your whale-god like powers any attempt to shape the platform with your flags will only be seen as censorship and an abuse of power.
This minnow bows with respect, please don't flag me. ;) Grins. The message is real - the delivery was meant to be fun.
Sincerely,
@whatsup
*has anyone noticed my bad art is pretty awesome.
Vote, Follow, ReSteem at will - it is a decentralized block chain!
I voted this up, only to draw attention to my response. Your request might be directed at me, but I will flag posts that make lists and harass users. The "research" done in some of these articles is selective and the nature of the articles I flag are essentially trollish. I have discovered the identity of one account because I was able to piece together bits of their identity from their posts and descriptions, and found a real person with whom I had been acquainted in the past.
This discovery has only solidified my resolve to flag these trolls. I don't care if it is on the block chain, I don't care if it is a lot of work to piece together selective data. I will downvote it to zero and it will take another whale to counter my vote.
My opinion is that the posts I downvote are bad for the platform. In fact, I should have downvoted your post because it only stirs the pot of harassment and feeds the trolls.
P.S. I agree with you @whatsup, though, that posts should not be downvoted because they are subjectively over-rewarded. This idea is consistent with the Marxist concept called "the value-theory of labor". It is interesting that one of the pioneers of downvoting to adjust rewards (@dantheman) probably considers Marxism an anathema.
Of course @dantheman also describes himself as an anarchist from what I can tell, which is a philosophy rooted in the struggles of labor. So maybe his votes are intended to be Marxist and anarchist at the same time.
Well, we agree on the value part of flagging and my post was actually made in response to @masteryoda s stats post.
I don't buy this "labor theory of value" argument. If downvoting to reduce rewards you feel are not deserved is LTV then so is upvoting to increase rewards you feel are deserved. None if this is necessarily tied to the labor input.
What it comes down to is consensus-finding process, where the rewards flow to the posts where consensus exists they are deserving. If SP-holders disagree strongly enough about the reward-worthiness of a piece of content, then the votes annihilate each other as @svamiva accurately put it, and rewards flow elsewhere. The assumption here, which is largely accurate, is that there is no shortage of worthy posts and differences in merit are both subjective and relatively small. Again, I see no LTV inherent in in any of that, whether upvoting or downvoting.
Anyway, I agree with both you that: a) downvoting shouldn't be used frivolously (and IMO flagging @masteryoda is rather frivolous, but @ned is entitled to disagree), and b) it should be used when posts are harmful to the platform, as in the case of those "investigation" posts.
If all of the behavior being "trolled, witch hunted, or investigated" in on the up and up, why is there any problem with someone writing about it?
I will continue to say it is beneficial for the platform and potential investors to see that although there are issues, they are being worked out, in the light of transparency. This is good, it creates checks and balances for all. Thank you again for being out and about commenting and talking to the people on the site. If we don't always agree, I respect your willingness to address the users and explain how you see things.
There is no problem writing about it nor is anyone prevented from doing so. It is a problem if it gains prominence, visibility, and rewards (the latter encouraging more of it) because that creates a negative environment that is unattractive to some existing but especially new users. BTW, in my opinion there is overall too much Steemit-centric content altogether (some days Trending is filled with it) and this is already a problem for the site being unattractive to outsiders, so these negative Steemit-related posts are born with not one but two strikes against them.
This is supposed to be a social platform. Most people don't want to be social over constant bickering over who is right or wrong. They will just leave it to those with trollish tendencies who thrive on it and go elsewhere.
Since you have spotted, noted and responded to any negative posts I have made, I really hope you will take a quick peek at any of the of the rest of my post which are constructive or entertaining. Enjoyed the discussion.
@steemed
When I made this post it was not directed at you, as you can see it is several days old. I did repost it where you had flagged a user for pointing out information that is freely available.
I acknowledge your right to flag
and @ats-david s right to post,
as well as @dantheman s right to counter vote.
So, now we have achieved, Decentralized Block Chain, Congratulations!
The primary difference in your freedom to flag is the Reputation it costs the system. Small users can bitch all day about the site, post all day about the site, and it doesn't look crooked until you start to silence them.
You are a Whale here. Good for you, some of us have been whales in other settings. I frankly don't care that you all upvote each other. But, for the real minnows, we can spot the atypical accounts very quickly, and by it being posted about and discussed those users identified got to have their chance at rebuttal. As someone who mostly watched. I felt better about the potential for investment, because odd behavior cannot be hidden. I even posted about it.
I appreciate you sharing your views and motives, so I thank you for that, you didn't have to.
I doubt you are interested, but I am a potential investor, and this is my experience.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@whatsup/the-life-of-a-minnow-why-you-should-care-part-one
Have an excellent night, and since this post is so old, I doubt your response will get noticed. :( Sorry.
Upvoted to get your attention. Enjoy the 2 cents. (Said in fun)
Well, in fact by whales flagging each other your voting power as minnow encreases, because the reward pool remains the same anyway.
Suppose, tomorrow everyone except you will refrain from voting. Then you alone would distribute the whole reward pool, your vote would have weight thousands of dollars.
Similar effect is produced when whales votes annihilate each other.
They despite their power are supposed to be part of the curating/voting community. Not the rulers.
Although your point is accurate, it isn't really what I am talking about. :) Thanks for reading and commenting though.
Post included in: Steemprentice spotlight 9/24 - Steemit Mentors and Mentees helping everyone steem better!
Sweet! Thank you.
source: giphy.com
What Up! Talking about unnecessary Flagging? Seen it and It Hurts, the Author Reputation
Yes, it does... I realize they are "Free" to use their votes and flags how they like, it is just one of those... I don't think it is good for SteemIt topics. (Apparently, they don't really take my opinion into consideration. Go figure.
I think there are altogether too many Steemit posts and topics, whatever the particular subject matter or views being expressed (though the hostile, negative, and trollish ones are worse of course). This is another widely expressed complaint by those who newly join or decline to join. It is a message we need to take to heart, both with our posting and our voting.
Now, I protest to upvote them , no matter how good their post is.
Go into my Blacklist.