You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Throw-Away-Accounts is a problem - I suggest that in order to be allowed to FLAG a post - the account FLAGGING needs to have a MINIMUM of 50 positive posts and more then 100 SP
Here's another solution:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@shenanigator/steemit-s-current-flagging-system-will-lead-to-unwanted-censorship
My suggestions to fix it
When a user clicks the flag button, have a box pop up saying something to the extent of Flagging a post is only for instances of (insert rules here). Unwarranted flagging can result in (insert penalties here). Enter reason for flagging in the box below.
Select trusted users would then be allowed to see who flagged the post, why they flagged the post, and click whether the flag was warranted or not.
- If only a low percentage of your flags are marked as "unwarranted", then no harm, no foul.
- If a higher percentage of your flags are "unwarranted" then your flagging privileges get suspended.
- If you have a highly-accurate flagging history, then you are granted the privileges to review other peoples' flags.
For many moons I've been saying flags should require the flag issuer to give a reason. And now I would take it a step further and say that flags should be eligible for upvotes, which would offer an economic and reputational incentive to flag appropriately, and to hunt for flaggable posts to begin with.
This shouldn't be too difficult, in fact all that has to happen is for a comment (pretty much like any other comment on a post) to be generated containing the reason for the flag. Then that comment can be upvoted. It would probably make sense for such flag comments to be in a separate section at the bottom of the post.
Sounds like we're in perfect agreement with each other. If you want to take part or all of my post that I linked above and repost it, feel free!
It's easy for a quality post (especially from someone new to Steemit like me) to get lost in the abyss of new posts. I think if it were posted by someone with more clout, like you, it would be seen by the right people.
so you want a system where people are punished for voting in a way that you disagree with.
Not at all. What part of my post makes you think that is the case?