Game theory applies here also, but like at prisoners dilemma.
Since uninformed players are trying to maximize their income, the optimum solution is missed.
No other explanation of flagging while it is a sacrifice of VP that can be used for, at least self-upvote.
FD.
Prisoner's dilemma is fallacious for all practical purposes. It presupposes that both (all) actors are perfectly selfish and therefore sociopathic (aka "perfect" according to Chicago school of economics at least). However, dominant sociopathic tendencies are statistically recorded in only 5-10 % of population, the rest being "abnormal" "sheep" or just plain normal folks who juggle selfishness with genuine altruism. (I guess there is a proportion similar to that of the wolves of "super-sheep" or "martyrs" who are overwhelmingly altruistic but I couldn't find any research on that, I guess self-sacrificing saints are not as interesting as serial killers and sociopaths next door)
Anyways, Game Theory is very interesting and even practically useful but only if you take into account the realities of human animal.
As for flagging... I've done some thought experiments on it and I can't say I've found a truly satisfying solution - IF our goal is a stable, permanent social system (And that is an assumption. It is perfectly possible the original purpose of steemit is to fleece as much as you can and run, a classical pyramid scheme - but not a social space of any permanence). Anyway you turn it, it is introducing weapons into anarchy. Never a good thing unless you're into Mad Max style juvenile dystopian fantasies. Kindergartens function only because children are forbidden from having knives. Primate group dynamics take hold very quickly and Lord of the Flies scenario becomes inevitable. Primates are a nasty animal order in general, better not give them guns if you don't absolutely have to. And if you do, at least give them toy guns.
For me, the prisoner's dilemma is tested and proved here with facts and data.
There are 2 people, Person A and Person B.
Person A : Greedy and selfish but totally legal ( not fair ) according to the system. Posts 10 times a day with discussable content and self-upvotes all his posts with maximum power. Consumes %6 of the reward pool alone with approximately 3000SBD. If he didn' exist, everyone's income should be theoretically higher by %6.
Person B : Rejects this situation, knowing that if Person A is stopped, everyone's income should increase by %6 including his.
With above conditions, the game starts.
Person B requests Person A to decrease the number of his posts to 4 times a day which should mean %60 decrease in Person A's income.
Person A rejects this and Person B starts downvoting Person A stripping approximately %20 of his income back to the reward pool. ( 600 SBD )
The pay-out table of this game is as below :
As you can see, there exists a much better solution for both parties ( reject-not flag ) but the parties, trying to maximize their income, applies the non-ideal solution.
I have written a more detailed post on the reward pool and flag wars.
I am really happy when I find intelligence on this planet.
FD.
"I am really happy when I find intelligence on this planet."
I think I just came across some.