Well, I guess this is a very noble policy, but not everywhere and not always.
Imagine that all major projects here that have a powerful SP will to intervene in local conflicts between users, who did not ask for help, ie by default.
And here we have a system in which users are not allowed to Express criticism against members of certain communities. Accordingly, many users will try to join the communities with the largest SP to get high immunity.
This may seem like a dystopia or future social model of Steemit. The system is based on the principle of decentralization becomes a limited closed community in which rules dictate the main holders of Power.
Earlier we said that Steemit will change the world, but it turns out quite the opposite with this hypothetical scenario.
You're talking about the spirit of togetherness that will suffocate those who do not want be with you and just gives his opinion.
We are not limited nor closed. Everyone is free to join and cooperate! Please do not make accusations without understanding the facts.
I was talking about a possible scenario in the future, not trying to insult specifically your community. It is about all societies. You have to understand your power and consequences of its application fully. Providing to your members such specific immunity by default entails consequences. As you say:
Any member? Always?
if they did no harm to anyonegood clarification, but as we know there is no only one truth.What if in the next conflict you come across a member of a stronger community, and not with an individual user?
Will you conduct a detailed investigation in relation to your memeber (if it's not top author)?
Will give the other party the opportunity to speak so that the whole Steemit heard a different opinion?
This is only the most obvious questions that you should ask yourself when you acts like in this case with @moon32walker and @velimir.
If the answer to all these questions is Yes. You need to closely monitor all members of your community, otherwise there will be chaos.
Or, all of your members by default are decent people, and to find out it you need to create the criteria for the selection of new participants. And here we get limited closed community.
Or, each community protects all of its members always no matter what. So Steemit turns into a constant battle of flags where the winner is the voice of a strongest community.
That's why I think that the fact of your intervention in this case is very important.
I have no right to demand something from you or tell you what to do. But, consider the fact that @velimir is not weak user, and he didn't ask you to help.
Step aside, don't suppress the voice of another user by your power. Your support of your participants is manifested in the fact that you VOTE for them.
Here are the facts. What you are doing is shutting down your opposition for stating the facts. Reward pool is not adsactly's playground. Have some respect and don't flag a person who is here as long as you are. My reputation is not something you can flag to 0, by doing so you are showing ignorance and disrespect for my body of work. All because I flagged an individual because of his history of huge rewards, he can barely notice those flags and you decided to flag my blogs to 0. You used threats, you used fear and intimidation tactics, you falsely believe this is some kind of envy. What you are doing is buying people to do your bidding. What I deduced from all that is that You absolutely suck.