Recently, there was an issue that arose from flagging of certain posts by @transisto.
@michelle.gent has been a prolific fiction author here on Steemit. She's made it a point of serializing some of her content to release as individual posts. As an author who's done the same with some of my own work, I understand how that goes; I've recently stopped serializing one of my novels because I plan to publish it through Steemhouse Publishing on the Writers' Block.
A few days ago, @transisto decided to flag several of Michelle's serialized posts. They weren't full flags to reduce the value of her post to zero. Near as I can tell, and by his own admission, they were posts to reduce the value of her post based on viewership, timeliness, and popularity.
There's more than a couple of things wrong here, so I'll start with the first thing on my mind:
- "Size of Viewership" - I'm going to touch on this first because this is an absolute bullshit metric. Flagging as a method for dealing with reward imbalance is something to consider, and there's plenty of cases where I would consider that to be true. However, if one of your criteria for reducing a vote payout is because someone is relatively unknown, that disincents people from putting their best foot forward. Better to stick to mainstream posting and go with the flow, lest one of their posts catch someone's eye and they get a big bonus, only to be denied it later.
- Quality of Posting - Quality has always been subjective, and I've been consistent in arguing that people can vote based on what they think is quality. However, flagging posts based on that criteria opens up wide avenues for abuse. Say you think cyberpunk fiction is just absolute garbage. Say you're also privy to a sizeable flag. Well, based on this criteria alone, why not nuke all cyberpunk fiction? Quality does play a role, but we're talking the difference between a cat picture and any reasonably produced original content.
- Popularity - Given @transisto's actions, I'm assuming he meant whether or not the poster was popular, which ties back into viewership. If not, why are you punishing people for catching more attention?
This has raised a bigger question about flagging in general.
I don't think flagging should disappear or that it should somehow change functionally. I know those suggestions have been made elsewhere. However, I do think that there should be some clear standards for what should result in flagging and what shouldn't. The problem is that these decisions are, necessarily subjective.
That being said, I'm pretty sure we can all agree on some basis for flagging posts. Spam is an obvious choice. Something like child pornography would be another. Posts that are poorly constructed, or are copypasta are also reasonable to consider for flagging. However, when posts are flagged for "inadequate viewership" or not being supreme quality, users take notice. Users see these things.
I don't care who you are; the thought of hitting an amazing payday because a whale catches your posts and gives you a bonus is a huge boost of confidence. It's an incentive. Declaring, essentially, that users who get a big boost on their work don't deserve it because they're not popular enough to deserve it is ludicrous.
As one of the moderators, supporters, and users of the Writers' Block, this episode has been especially relevant for me. How are we supposed to encourage new authors to put their work out? How are we supposed to convince authors to leave their established publishing arenas to come to Steemit? This was damaging not just to @michelle.gent, but to the platform as a whole. I appreciate that @transisto doesn't think that novel-writing is a good fit for the platform. Thankfully, he's not the arbiter of what is or isn't good for Steemit.
Unless Steemit is supposed to just be about crypto, as @transisto indicated with his reward for a trending post in r/bitcoin or r/cryptocurrency, then we, as a community and as a platform, need to speak out loudly and vigorously to prevent this kind of flagging abuse. That's exactly what this, and flagging like this, amounts to.If you want to vote for me as a witness, cast your vote here! Scroll down until you see this text box and type in my name.
Like what you read? Follow me, @anarcho-andrei! You can also find me on PALnet and the Fiction Workshop on Writers' Block:
One small simple question.
How do we attract celebrities with this?
I wholeheartedly agree. This is flag abuse pure and simple. I’m a writer of a serialized novel just the same as Michelle. Just exactly why @Transisto thinks novels are not right for Steemit, I’m not sure. Unfortunately he’s not a good enough writer to get his point across coherently. In any case who the fuck voted him arbiter of what’s worthy of upvotes? We don’t need or want a master editor thanks. Isn’t that meant to be the point of Steemit anyway?
I know right? That was my first thought:
"Man, it's a good thing @transisto is here to establish that novels don't have a place on here. I was confused about it for a second there."
I am here to say it's incredibly stupid for an investor to flag anybody much ever at all. I really feel like this episode of Transisto deciding to play cop pretty much just makes him look like an ass, and has taught us all to tell people NOT to come here.
Does he WANT to make his investment completely worthless? Cause this is how you make your investment completely worthless.
It's inexplicable, inexcusable, erratic, unstable, manic and absolutely asinine behavior. Way to go Transisto, you are wasting your own investment by deterring anybody from ever coming here or writing anything on the platform, when asshole vigilantes can act like petulant children just because they got some of Daddy's money.
Bullies suck, and he's a bully.
Fuck that guy. Now come flag me, big man. Like we give two shits about your idea of what people should or shouldn't do here. Seriously. Come at me bro.
Seriously Mathieu, is this all you have to do with your lonely time?
I can understand flagging blatant spam and some of the garbage we've seen tossed onto the chain. There's plenty of operations that fight that kind of abusive posting, and I think that's healthy. Policing content that you don't think deserves the amount of rewards because "they're just not popular enough to deserve it" is bullshit.
Well yeah, illegal behavior like copyright theft is the kind of thing that will get the platform and the interface companies sued. So of course. Illegal is illegal. But spam, as much as it sucks can be ignored. We did on facebook. It's annoying but it never stopped me from succeeding around it. It's not something self proclaimed vigilantes will ever fix and who are they to decide anyway?
Especially when his posts are.....
I think @miti understand what flagging should and shouldn't be. I genuinely support his/her work and we share a similar philosophy on the matter. It would be nice if you can visit this link and give it a look: https://steemit.com/steemit/@miti/my-commitment-to-making-steemit-a-place-free-from-spammers
Thank you.
I don't like spam, but that account is so tiny nearly any spammer could crush it in retaliation. This work is being skillfully addressed by SteemCleaners and Witness Patrice though, for sure, with much more power behind it. All work that helps is good to fight spam though.
All the more reason to support it. There are tons of spammers with low Voting power. @miti will at least crush them. Any fight is helpful for the future of steemit.
Absolutely and fully agree with all of this. Why should I spend 20 hours writing a short story to publish on steemit when some fellow is going to come along and flag it into oblivion because he doesn't think this type of content should have success? It's going to shut out a huge portion of what should be what steemit is about. Spend those flags on things that deserve it, like copy/paste content, spam, plagiarized material, etc.
Exactly. There's plenty of material deserving of flags. Material that is original and has some value in the quality of the content should not be flagged because the user doesn't have a large following. This episode has exposed some of the most arrogant reasoning I've ever seen on Steemit, and I've seen a lot.
This issue sends ripples through the blockchain and many users are threatened by these flags. She's a good writer and her experience wanted and inspiring to us. Thanks for your thoughts.
"timeliness and popularity" as reasons for downvoting someone's posts are garbage fucking reasons.
like you said, "That being said, I'm pretty sure we can all agree on some basis for flagging posts. Spam is an obvious choice. Something like child pornography would be another. Posts that are poorly constructed, or are copypasta are also reasonable to consider for flagging." - NAILS IT.
these are obvious reasons for downvoting a post. anything beyond these reasons make you a petulant, petty asshole. period. i've seen plenty of posts that i don't agree with, primarily in regards to politics...the difference is, i just avoid those posts. what is the purpose of me disincentivizing other users for their particular political leanings? there's literally no reason other than to be petty.
michelle's great; this is the first time i've heard of transisto.
Well, he's going to be Steemit famous at this rate. I don't like getting involved in this stuff and I generally avoid flag wars like the plague because I don't have a dog in the fight, but this shit is ridiculous. The level of arrogance one would need to have to flag rewards because a user isn't popular enough to deserve them is incredible.
Story of my life... never been in with the 'in crowd' but I'm of the opinion that I'll never fit in because I stand out (and up, and forward) 😆
Worst of all I consider this kind of flagging to be a clear infringement of the authors right to receive the rewards and also a vote against the upvoters by someone who knows better. This alone isn't bad at all. It's like nuclear energy. It could go either way.
Infringing the rights of a person who is a threat to the platform that violate the NAP (Like a spammer) should be given the flag and have the rewards removed. But anybody who produce content has the right tor receive rewards even if it is unfair.
I barely make anything on my posts. But that's not a reason to call in re-distribution.
Controlling distribution is just commie nonsense.
I know that flagging of a post can send it to oblivion, and
If that is done from spite, it is
WRONG
↑Upvoted↑ and ←Resteemed→
You understood well enough!
Upvoted and resteemed!! This is an essential discusdion. As creative content makers we all have a duty to keep speaking on it and helping the culture to see the difference between a group working to support a talented artist and a corporate backed shitpost just looking to promote nonsense like how cool they are. Im gonna write a post about that after this . Hope we all can ease the burden of this flagwar
Please do! I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things with a lot of people, but I think more than most of us can agree that this kind of behavior needs to be discouraged. With extreme prejudice.
Well said. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention man.
I'm glad that I could do that. This is an issue that worries me not just as a Steemit user but as a fiction writer as well.
Your points about the stated rationale for the flags are well made and well taken. However, I'd like to respectfully discuss this comment:
Unfortunately, as long as the diametrically opposite actions of adding value to a post and removing value from a post are poorly described semantically, this kind of problem will continue to occur.
IMHO, these behaviors should be described symmetrically, using English words that are likewise precisely opposite in meaning--i.e., upvote v downvote.
If the platform needs "flags," there should be a separate channel for that. A "flag" means that something is abusive, gaming, or otherwise a direct attack on the platform (hacking or theft) or on the poster (ad-hominem).
Furthermore, it isn't really crystal clear to me why we really need the downvote function, but I will confess that I am not really knowledgable enough in the detailed workings of the financial side to meaningfully make a case for that.
Thanks for a great article!
😄😇😄
To better understand why downvoting is necessary I recommend to read this post. One paragraph in particular is very enlightening:
Thank you very much for the quote and reference. I will read that post and, hopefully, arrive at a better understanding.
I really appreciate your stepping in and offering me this very relevant information! :)
😄😇😄
Actually, 'laws of human nature' or game theory, is just a political tool and should not have a place in here (it was used to take control away from the governments and give it to the corporations so that they police themselves, for example, if you design a car with faulty brakes, the government cannot do anything, game theory says the corporation will recall the cars and fix them because it pays them to do so). We've all seen the results of those theories, but, more important, I thought that Steemit was based on the free market.
In other words, I write a poem, a story or paint a picture. anarcho thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread and pays me $200. Whatever else anyone else thinks of my talent, to anarcho it is worth $200 and nobody else has the right to impose his own opinion on us by taking away most of that money. In my view, not only is he trampling on my rights and the rights of anarcho to determine according to his tastes what the market value of my work is, he is also stealing the funds from both of us, for after all, he may claim that the money is not mine until the week is up, but he cannot make the same claim vis-a-vie anarcho. To him it will also feel as if his money was stolen, and so it will be so.
I am against flagging for any reason apart from controlling criminal behaviour, the rest of the time, market forces should be left to impose the conditions. That is fair; you don't like my work, then don't upvote me; that happens often enough, I'll realise I am wasting my time and move on, without anyone having to abuse me or harm my sense of dignity.
The moment it is used for personal users to impose an opinion, then I consider that act as becoming, itself, criminal behaviour and demeans what Steemit was meant to become.
Hello, @arthur.grafo,
I'm responding only briefly, as I don't think you meant to address your reply to me, but I'm the one it got directed to...
FYI, Steemit users do not pay one another. They have an influence on a reward pool, which is not the same thing. Some of the details of how that works are in the Steemit White Paper.
You may wish to re-post your reply under the main article, or under @onthewayout's remarks, as he is the one who mentioned "game theory?"
Thanks, I was not really addressing anyone in particular, just trying to contribute to the discussion.
As for the reward pool; you are right, I was trying to make my point by exaggerating the amount. A question: Does my position as a steemit member provide me, as a benefit, wih the right to a tiny share of the pool, for me to dispose of as I wish? Does that not, in a sense, mean that those few cents are mine, so that I can benefit by allocating them to someone? (my benefit might be that the post earns enough for me to get a fraction of a cent, or my benefit could be in the social sphere, my upvoting indicating friendliness and a wish to reward that person?
By someone taking the money, they are affecting what I could earn, plus I no longer have the satisfaction of feeling I did a good deed (if I have none left, then I really can't).
It may sound like I'm splitting hairs and making points that are not of high value (money-wise etc), but questions of right and wrong are meant to be independant of such considerations.
Anyway, whatever I say, I know I cannot make a difference, but it was nice trying. Thanks for replying to my previous comment.
Hi again,
Thanks for clarifying.
Actually, the Steemit White Paper explicitly states that is not the case. According to the White Paper:
I'm glad you brought this up, as I am still figuring out and learning how this ingenious system actually works.
A down vote does not affect the outcome of your vote. You can still feel good because without your vote, the result would have been even less for whomever you voted for.
Oh I agree with that comment wholeheartedly. If it's going to function as a balance to upvotes (which it currently does), then it should be called downvoting. As far as why we really need it, look no further than the actual spam that gets nuked daily. I think it serves a healthy function, but there needs to be some established standards that the community can rally around when someone abuses that function. This is one such case.
I've seen what I consider to be better proposals for dealing with the proliferation of spam... from @mattclarke in particular, as I recall, but there may be others.
I think one of the best would be make commenting a privilege earned by gaining reputation. A true "flag" would then affect reputation only, closing the door on spam.
In any case, it's pretty clear that there's work to be done! ;)
Communities is going to solve a lot of things.
Oooh, I like that idea. Make reputation actually mean something significant besides being an indicator of status.
I think upvotes are called upvotes for a reason and flags are called flags for a reason. They are not the same by design. Upvotes allocate reward and flags are to be used with caution to take rewards away from posts that are abuse. Anytime a flag is used to counter something that is not abuse, I view the act of flagging as abuse itself.
Hi Dave,
I fear that in this instance you are wrong.
The Steemit White Paper itself tells a different story. They are the same, by design. At least they are said to be.
In fact, the word "Flag" is found nowhere within the WhitePaper. Search as you will you'll only find "votes," either up or down.
However, I have heard it said that down votes affect reputation more strongly than up votes. I am having a great deal of difficulty finding accurate documentation about that, but I'll keep trying from time to time.
The word "flag" has a very negative connotation, and perhaps for that reason alone the user interface should be modified to show up and down votes instead.
Thanks for the correction then, it will help me have my facts straight in the future.
I would certainly advocate for this to be the way we view them though.
I wonder if changing the downvote to a flag was indeed a conscious decision and I wonder what's in the code base, not just on the most popular interface.
While I haven't examined the code myself, I have read from several who have that the code treats up and down votes symmetrically and does not mention "flags."
However, my confusion remains as far as the exact way reputation works in the latest fork of the system. I would love to know if that is truly symmetrical or not. Much of the discussion I've seen strongly implies that down-votes have a stronger impact on reputation than up-votes.
I am adding another comment, because I would like to mention that I think that a number of people (after deducting those who are here only for the money) find enjoyment in discovering such a surprising plethora of new talent.
Yes, I enjoy posting and being upvoted, but just as much, I find myself delighted by the discovery of a new to me talent and if I see he or she is young and struggling, Steemit offers me something miraculous: Without having to take out of my small out-of-steemit income money for upvoting, I have the ability to help thanks to the brilliant system devised here.
Downvoting or flagging - it kills that (and without reason for it existing beyond preventing crimes).
I agree. I have met friends here that I value very highly, no matter what becomes of Steemit. I have also had some very enjoyable and educational reading.
Excellent post. I also saw this unraveling but with not much weight around here I did not post about it or involve myself too much in the posts discussing it. It's become almost like a 'snitch out who you think is getting more reward than you think they deserve'.
There are many people getting reported. Even poor little unknowns which are only scrapping cents from the reward pool. One large factor is that minuscule nobody's are sucking up to these whales and stroking their egos.
As stated in your posts and in the comments. It will not end well. Countless identities will simply take their work elsewhere and the reputation of steemit will be very tarnished. More than it already is. From the outside looking in, it's a whole lot of infighting.
Communities need to come soon. I think with that some of these kinks will be ironed out. The positive will also come as healthy competition between communities and the whales that support them. It would be a very shameful act for a whale to be meddling in the affairs of a community that they don't have any association with.
There are a great number of low power users that are posting garbage, like spam and plagiarized posts. That being said, there are also low power users who are trying to make it and getting the door slammed in their face.
I hope communities improve the situation. I think they will.
Considering you only get a payout window for 7 days I think abusing the flag function should penalize the user, not the poster if the content isn't breaking rules (plagiarism, child pornography, etc.) . After 7 days the work is still up there for others to find in the future and for the whole community to enjoy and consume at their leisure with no further reward for the creator that did all the hard work (except maybe the occasional additional follower). Taking away even a penny in such an instance is uncouth.
From what I gathered, if you write about cryptocurrencies, that is a good subject and is worth a $100-$200 daily reward. But if you earn rewards from other topics, you can get flagged, because you're not important and don't bring value to the platform...
Which just blasts my brain through the wall and out into the street.
Yep, nailed it.
Well written post and arguments against the kind of action we saw taken with @michelle.gent
I wrote up a post of my own on the topic as well, but yours touches some good points that mine does not.
Why it's important to flag with respect.
I will give @transisto some props for actually engaging and communicating with her about the flag, but it's definitely brought to light a whole nother discussion about how flagging should be used.
I will gladly give him credit for explaining himself. That's more than many. The reasoning behind it, however, is awful, and his justification for it is incredible.
Agreed, and that's why I believe that it's important for people to actually state their reasoning for flagging, so that it can be seen by the community and discussed accordingly. Especially when it's seen as harmful and not justified.
I dIsagree with this particular flag but I also think that people should be free to use their SP to upvote or flag as they see fit.
Norman, coordinate!
There's plenty of use cases for having a downvote function. This one in particular is absolute nonsense and should be derided and mocked.
There are many types of bloggers / writers. We write according to what we are passionate about. If novel writing is your gig, then let those who like it - express their appreciation. If they don't like it, they can just move on and read another blog and upvote that.
if there is a post that is abusive of others, violates code of ethics (if such a thing exist), spammy / scammy, then by all means - please flag it.
Agreed. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm all in favor of flags existing. I don't agree they should be used in this manner.
there are two major problems on Steemit.
Flaggin and bots.
both should be written OUT of the code.
I don't know about flagging necessarily; it seems a natural thing to have a downvote that correlates to upvotes. That said, there should be by now some clearly established standards for good flagging and abusive flagging. We're decentralized, so there isn't going to be Steemit, Inc. bearing down on us to wag a finger or slap someone's wrists. However, those of us seeing this should speak up loudly and vociferously to indicate just how wrong someone is for doing this.
you said
clearly established standards for good flagging and abusive flagging.
then you said
We're decentralized
cough, cough, cough
You can have clearly established standards without a centralized system. Case in point, common law. I'm talking about using social pressure to discourage individuals from blatantly abusing the downvote function.
you don't consider common law to be centralized?
amazing.
one person's abuse is another person's mission from god
who you gonna call?
I'm against flaggin. If you don't like something..ignore it...if you don't like what someone is posting...mute them.
flaggin violates ZAP.
So the only way something like murder is understood to be wrong is by having a centralized committee to declare it such? You can establish community standards based entirely on opinions. That's what markets do. You vote with your wallet. In this case, you vote on the behavior you disdain by being vocal about it. That creates precedent. Precedent leads people's decisions in the future.
the DEFINITION of murder is "unlawful killing"..guess who makes the laws?
and once again...what I believe should be and what IS are two different things.
If you've read many of my posts you might have come across where I speak of Dunbar's number, Rat Utopia, The Iron Law, Behavioral Sinks...or to put it another way..there are only two classes of people in the world..there are US..and there are THEM. Our laws for THEM are different for our laws for US.
sorry...facts suck don't they?
but observation supports the hypothesis..
Bots cannot be written out of the code. Their existence could be made a tiny bit more difficult, but they are bound to exist. And no flags would mean no option to deal with abuse. And a decentralized system needs that.
if nothing can be done then things are just peachy keen ain't they?
no reason to complain.
Pointing out the problems with specific solutions suggested is not an opinion on the original problems. I said that your no bots sentiment is unrealistic and that your no flags suggestion would create more serious problems than the current ones. I did not express an opinion on the problem and I didn't even criticize complaining about it.
Ok fine..
everything is peachy keen.
never mind.
Sure...
I agree: '..users take notice. Users see these things.' I was at Steemfest and loved the community atmosphere, but in a few short weeks I have become totally confused and disillusioned. Pages of a novel aren't acceptable. But neither are short posts. But auction apps are. Personally I am more interested in a one-liner that makes me laugh than a chance to sell something on Steemit, but the thing that bothers me most is the feeling of being in a bad relationship where you are watching your step as you only know whether something is 'wrong' or not after you have done it. If there are clear rules to Steemit I can make a decision whether or not I stay on this platform. If there aren't, anything goes, unless, as you said, it's something like child porn. People can't find their community unless they are given a chance to be who they are and do what they do. Without being picked on by those who don't share their tastes.
This is exactly what I've been talking about even before all this started happening.https://steemit.com/steemit/@skeptic/the-steemit-issues-arguments-from-the-other-side-part-1-censorship I had some comments on the above posts and I spent few hours comment on the current matters all over the place.
steemit is a simple might (voting weight) makes it right platform where there is no constitution. I've been told that SMTs can solve this. But it won't change steemit at the protocol level. The only way that can get anything done on steemit is voting weight. Bitcoin needs a 51% attack. On steemit, any amount counts. My average revenue per vote is 4 cents. A whale can easily have 1000 times that. Without clear pre-defined rules, steemit won't prosper as it should.
Flagging any content with quality is a zero sum game. It's just like war or presidential elections. It's a waste of energy and resources. Understand that this is a war. Get more Voting weight on the good side and understand that this needs to stop.
Agreed. It serves no one except the flagger to remove rewards from a post. The others voting for it, unless there's some kind of evidence for collusion to actually unjustly drain the rewards pool, are voting it because they value that post to the level they've voted.
great information tnx for sharing
Everyone should be able to do their own material as long as it is in good taste. Who is to say what should be flagged and not be?
Exactly! I can understand spam and chain posts that are carbon copies of other posts elsewhere on the web, but this is neither. Even in the case of carbon copy posts, if its your original content, what's the problem with marketing it across several platforms?
Right. I have that problem. I have content I want on several platforms.
Who makes those programming calls? Is it the witnesses getting together to discuss that or there a central person?
Witnesses don't have any control over that, except to not adopt certain measures. Any programming change to the chain has to be adopted by a majority of the top 20 witnesses to become the official version. It's a veto, in effect.
Beep! Beep! This humvee will be patrolling by and assisting new veterans, retirees, and military members here on Steem. @shadow3scalpel will help by upvoting posts from a list of members maintained by @chairborne and responding to any questions replied to this comment.
Kind a complicated issue.
Good content I always follow your new. I hope you will follow my account if possible. I am waiting for your new.
I feel bad for using the same comment twice, but I feel I should spread my knowledge about the matter. I have been following her since her comeback to Steemit when she was earning 3 bucks per post, therefore I feel like I have been following the whole story...
Let me tell you my point of view. Everyone is here to gain money. She knew that she has a really wealthy trail on her that was bringing most of her posts to bigger value than 100 bucks. When she came back she was writing rather sporadically and I have been following her ever since. When she realized that she has that wealthy trail on her she started posting more than 3 times per day in order to get more than one 100 bucks up vote. If she kept it to 1 per day it would be totally fine (by me), someone thought she deserves it. But she tried to game the reward pool by those actions. A whale spotted such a behaviour and flagged it. It is by no means war against fiction, nor writing, nor anything else but the try to rape the reward pool. When I have spotted the behaviour I unfollowed her, because it was in contradiction with what I want to support on the Blockchain. My stake is nowhere close for fight against 100 bucks upvotes, so not giving her the views was all I could have done. It doesn’t baffle me that she has met those flags...Flag is not bullying. Flag is as important tool as upvote is...
That wasn't the reasoning that the flagger provided. Moreover, it's not raping the reward pool to post multiple times if a particular user is upvoting you. This phraseology needs to either be refined or dropped altogether. There's no evidence of spam botting or collusion here that I've seen or anyone's provided evidence for. Trying to maximize a stroke of good fortune is not rape in any appreciable sense.
Her post was flagged because: (1) the flagger decided that she wasn't popular enough to warrant the payout, and (2) because "novels aren't a good fit" for Steemit. This is from the flagger directly. To both of those counts, I can only balk at the sheer arrogance of the person doing the flagging. Moreover, if you were in that position and witnessed this, are you suggesting you'd aim to remove her rewards completely? Despite the fact her content is not only original but generally higher quality than a large portion of content posted to the platform?
As I said it is only my point of view. The reasoning behind his actions is not strong, it’s rather invalid I agree. People here, from my experience, have a problem to admit that the biggest motivation for everyone on Steemit is money. When you spot that someone is getting ridiculous rewards (subjective matter) for the value the user is bringing you try to find better reasoning than "bigger value than what is deserved".
I think that when you hit that wealthy trail, you should try to further increase the quality of the posting, instead of its frequency. I personally deem that as a rewardpoolrape and if I was the trail I would immediately remove the auto-upvote. What evidence do you want? I didn’t understand that one sorry.
And as to your questions. No If I had the power I would tell her my problem (I always do when it’s not spammer with the same comment all over the platform...that I flag directly). I would be interested in hearing out what she thinks prior to taking action. I wouldn’t definitely remove 100% (if the post had 100 bucks value) rather 50% if we didn’t reach a consensus. Also If I was the trail I would just remove the vote. I am an advocate for quality rather than quantity and I have spotted the spamming syndrome in there. That most of the content is of lesser quality is irrelevant, I would just find different content of high quality (from my point of view)...Hope I made myself clearer than in the comment before:)
I have a problem with your reasoning. Right now my vote is only worth $0.010. Most people could care less about my vote at this stage. I voted on most of those post that were flagged. Any reward I would have gotten is pretty much toast. If I vote I comment. Some of those comments Michelle found good enough to vote on, so that means I will get a reward.
Now you are telling me that when my vote eventually rises to $100.00 (if that's possible), and I really liked a post that it would be a waste of my time to vote what I think it is worth because you are going to come along and adjust it to what YOU think it is worth? Please tell me why I or anyone else should vote on anything if it is only You and transisto that are capable of deciding what a payout/persons vote should be worth?
You’ve done several “discussion fouls” in here. First of all where do I imply that I and transistor are the only one who can adjust the payout? EACH AND EVERY INVESTOR (stakeholder) can do that. Michele had early voters on her and value of her post was every time too high for you to get anything out of curation from her posts at your stage. If you want to understand why feel free to check this tutorial. The fact that she has voted for your comment is absolutely irrelevant. Good for you I guess, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the post and with what people think about its value. If you accept the upvote you have to accept the downvote too Its really that simple:). I do not have the right to suppose that I know what is good for the system, but you neither dear Steemit user. Your comment is more or less and emotional outburst without any valid argument…
I've seen that quoted so often, without it really having a meaning that makes sense to me.
No, it is not that simple, not just because you say it is. Upvoting is a way for us to say to someone, thank you for sharing with us, and we give as we can or as we wish. That is our right - or are you saying we do not have that right? That only a bunch of you with the power and influence have the right? I have tried to see how it is that upvoting can be abuse, but I have not succeeded.
As for downvoting, it can only be of a positive nature when preventing other kinds of abuse, the kinds that are criminal, not the kind that cater to anyone's whims or tastes. Downvoting, unless it can be appealed (not to the downvoter) it becomes a wonderful stick, a whip, to force others into following your wishes.
It also sounds as if you are saying that the advantages of a capitalistic economy are not acceptable here, that it is not a marketplace where we each get paid according to what we are perceived to have offered in return? Oh, people can reward us if they want, but if you think they paid too much, you do not make them take back some of the money, nope, you take the money!
So, they are not two sides of the same coin, as you try to make it appear to be and there are more ethical and moral questions in force that you do not seem to be willing to even consider, for then it means you and your friends might have to relax some of the controls you feel you have over us. That is sad.
.
You made some good points (even though I would love to engage in conversation where people do not create their own stories of what i think) and I’ll try to explain myself even further.
Have you read the article I linked? It is pointless to add anything further (to the upvote/downvote being the same thing), since it’s perfectly explained in the article.
Explaining this could prove helpful I guess. So for example there was a account that created 3 sub accounts. He then used @minnowbooster to by tons of SP on the 3 sub accounts. He then created content on the first account and upvoted each and every post he has written to 150 bucks himself. This is one of the examples that explains why downvote is a crucial tool. But this is not CRIMINAL. It also is not tasty to a wealthy investor that has found out that this is happening. The same goes to michele. One investor found out that she is receiving around 400 bucks per day due to one voter and he decided to remove some of the influence of the voter.
Exactly that! You are paid what you are perceived to have offered according to the investors (they have their money at stake and they are the reason that you, me and everyone else can earn money through Steem and that it isn’t a worthless token). But everyone can adjust the payout either positively or negatively. Again, it’s pointless to add anything in this regard, if you haven’t done it yet, go and read the linked article in the previous comment please.
You’re right that there is ethical and moral problem there. Micheles case was tricky in particular. We have actually engaged in a discussion and understood each other. I partly support both sides. Any investor can flag her, but I think it would be better if he approached her first and told her about the problem he has with her. She could have adjusted and avoided the flags if that was the case. Me and my friends? Im fucking minnow too lol. I work hard for about a year here and I plan to have it as my main job. I spend well over 200 hours to learn about all the Blockchains I support. I came to an understanding that this is all possible due to people investing tons of money into the platform. They have tons of money to lose here and they can adjust the payout (positively or negatively) a lot. I haven’t invested anything, I just worked for the Blockchain the best I could and luckily, investors thought Im doing a good job. Still I can add or remove only 15 cents (don’t make me angry or you will feel my wrath lol...joke obviously:)) That’s just the way it is.
Do I use my power here over people? I guess yes. I ruthlessly flag spammers (same comment at each blog, follow for follow, etc.) You call it "have power over people" I call it "helping the platform to grow, because I have almost all of my money in SP and I will not see it die if I can help it".
Perhaps flagging/downvoting could be subject to appeal or review. That way we could keep flagging low-quality spammy posts, but if someone gets caught in that accidently, they could have the flag reviewed and revoked.
And there's the rub: who watches the watchmen?
Indeed—as always. How else to handle matters of this nature, tho? Ignore it and hope it doesn't happen again? The author in question is popular enough that the community is fighting for her, but what if this happens to someone who has less of an audience and no one to fight for them?
Well, I'll gladly fight against this trend of flagging. I don't have infinite reach though. I've got a lot on my plate, but maybe I can work something out.
@anarcho-andrei, after taking the time to go back and read through all the comments, I am amazed at how many good points were made. Even those who disagree with us, they presented whatever arguments they had, and in a way contributed to what so many are trying to achieve.
For this, however it works out, I just felt I had to say, thank you for trying so hard. Having people like you around does reduce the sting of having the others messing with our rights and lives.
I'm glad you think so! Honestly, this thread of conversations took off and there was a ton of good content in the comments section. I think there was plenty of commentary to suss out some idea of what everyone here thinks are legitimate reasons for flagging and what aren't.
Here here @anarcho-andrei, I agree with pretty much everything except I think Flagging should not be a thing. I think it should be Report Abuse where you can mark it for the Steemit Administration to check into, but I don't think downvoting should be a thing. I think once you make the money it shouldn't be something to take away.
@transisto seems to want to be King of Censorship! I thought the appeal of Steemit was 1) to be able to post anything you like as long as it's not harmful (abusive or illegal), 2) to be able to make money from your posting, & 3) to be able to post without threat of basic Censorship.
That's my 2-cents-worth, but then again I'm not a big earner so my opinion doesn't really count according to people like him.
I disagree. There is no Steemit Administration that handles these issues, nor should there be in my opinion. I left Facebook (or I'm trying to, as addicted as I am) precisely because they have an administration that decides what needs to be flagged and removed. Flagging serves a very legitimate purpose, and it should be from the users, not from a central agency with a singular vision.
I don't know, I can see both sides of it. If it needs to be user-driven so be it, but I still think it needs to be an abuse system not a downvote system... regardless how lame the posts are to some, pay is usually commensurate with the amount of work involved to some degree. I think, once you earn it, you should not have to worry about going backwards because someone gets pissed off at you.
My point of concern with flagging of this nature is it effectively declares to other users who voted it up, "no, your subjective valuation of this content is wrong. Here, let me fix it for you." It's an astounding level of arrogance. You can couch it in whatever terms you want-reward reallocation or what have you-but that's ultimately what it translates to.
I completely agree with that sentiment.
i think so many people falged on they are orignal post and this is not fair
few days ago steemcleaner flaged my orignal post and said this is copy paste and that was not faire for me ...
Your posts are all re-posts of content that isn't yours. Your flags are eminently justified.
im agree with that content but im talking about my own content my own tattoo desighn post
flag only those who have inappropriate content that can harm somebody life and do not flagging those who wants to share creativities and earn to support their life in a good competitive way..
I saw several of your posts today and after seeing that I can vote you for a witness, I immediately did. I totally agree with your philosophy on this specific matter. I'm a little minnow. I don't earn much. But I know that gaining something because somebody voted against another bunch of people's votes on rewards isn't right. It's downright communism if things get into such a zero-sum game.
Wish you the very best in all your work!
Upvoted and resteemed.
@vimukthi
Thank you tremendously for your support of my witness and the argument I'm presenting!
Congratulations @anarcho-andrei! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPUpvoted and resteemed. This flagging war needs to end. ASAP.