I do have a question for you that I just thought of that I really need to perhaps get a grasp on in terms of "Game Theory".
It is said that the down vote is a necessary opposite to the up vote.
Where is this when I walk into a book store?
As I stated, I do not walk around putting red check marks on all of the books on sports, or knitting, or things I have no interest on. I walk to the things I am interested in, I buy them, and I walk out.
About the only way I see something like this might manifest is when I ask someone "Is this any good?"
So this necessary opposite doesn't always seem to manifest as it seems the down vote does.
Is this the case?
EDIT: Though I do realize Gaming the system is still an issue.
The red checkmark (cost) is in unsold books leading to the publisher taking losses.
If people had to "pay to post" then there would also be less abuse.
The cost to abusing STEEM is almost nothing compared to the profits. The profit margin in publishing is much smaller and riskier.
That makes sense. Thanks for the quick response. Back to thinking I go.
I'm not sure that analogy fits @dantheman. I see the example as an analogy of a system that only provides upvotes without (explicit) downvotes. To infer that not buying a book is a downvote is like saying not upvoting in steemit is a downvote. If that were true game theory balance would exist and there would be no need for Steemit's downvoting.
I thought this article and the majority of comments were very well articulated and this is one of the best threads I've read about the Steemit governance model. Also very glad to see your active participation and payment of attention given to it.
Namaste!