I apologize for the "cops kicking a kids teeth in" part of my argument.
When a boxer punches another boxer in the ring, why isn't it a rights violation? Because they entered the ring voluntarily.
By the same token, when a steem participant loses rewards based on the rules of the system they voluntarily chose to participate in, it's not stealing or "unjustified" in the sense that government violence is unjustified.
We might want the voting system to be different or disagree with the whales behavior, but there is no rights violation. There is no aggression or initiation of force in the way that government does, because government is not voluntary, and steem is. @barrycooper
If the boxing game promised fair competition (censorship resistances) but the rules encourages other forms of behaviour (whales turning day into night) then surely those who invested their time and effort into the game, or in this case created content, have the right to speak out?
This is another submissive argument that's been posted: you didn't put any money in/you are getting more out of this than Facebook so don't complain. It's quite counterproductive because it suppresses constructive discussions.
I spent quite some time about working out how to implement a fair and accurate reputation system, and one of the things that I worked out was that downvoting should not be permitted. Post a post instead saying how crap you think they are, see how that goes? Makes you realise what a dumb idea it is after all.
In my humble opinion, upvotes cost money, downvotes lower the poster on YOUR feed. Whoever you upvote, their downvotes lower the poster to the degree you upvote them on your feed. Downvoting should just be shunning, not actual punishment. Votes should be irrevocable.
For sure. In fact, I can't help but think of it similar to trying to sue a casino for one's losses. You walk in knowing the risk. If that's how you want to react to it, then it's obvious you didn't understand the risk.
There is no rights violation but it's still not transparent. The whales are black boxes with preferences we can't decipher in advance. Maybe by requesting they post their voting preferences we can resolve this dispute. Whales who post the reasons they'll downvote will be more trusted than whales who downvote because they feel like it.
The whales are people with preferences that change from day to day. What one downvotes today is not necessarily what they will downvote tomorrow -- same as their upvotes.
You don't get to know who is going to flag your post, or vote for your post, until you post it.