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.
I have tried to see how it is that upvoting can be abuse, but I have not succeeded.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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".
You write well - and thanks for explaining.
Since I wrote my above comment, I came to understand better what the 'reward pool' is, so most of my arguments have had their legs cut off from under them.
Whatever the common sense of the situation is, I still think it works against the platform when a good poster has money taken away for reasons that have nothing to do with spam or other criminal activity. It makes all of us feel that we are working for nothing, that if we actually do achieve earning a decent income, we must then live with the fear that our money will be removed before the week is up.
You see, you are mainly basing your argument on the case argued on this page, whereas I am including the argument with (@berniesanders) and his puppy, who killed a posters earning because that poster presented a live interview he had managed to have with the doctor who provided the technical (medical) info used in the movie Vaxx. He directly said he hates those who are anti-vaccinations and those who write articles against pedophiles (pizzagate).
That is as clearly ABUSE with capital letters, for it tells us we DO have censorship (if you take my rewards away, it is a form of censorship - whether it is if a strict interpretation of the word is used, we also should take into consideration what is the practical effect). What can be done to stop people like him?
Lastly, you mentioned that he should have discussed it with Michelle so that she makes whatever adjustments are necessary - to do what? if I may ask? To earn less? Surely if he had a problem with another investor favouring her, he should have spoken to that person, instead of attacking a less powerful poster?
fingersik - thank you again and I hope that someday I become successful enough to be attacked, so that I can have a bunch of decent people like you stand up for me.
I agree and that is why the money on the post is not your money. It is potential reward. So basically there is a weeks’ time span when investors can evaluate, either positively or negatively, the work you have done for the Blockchain. Your money can’t be taken by anyone of course. When wealthy investor upvotes, no one really cares. It’s “normal” right? It makes people happy so why would anyone care. But when wealthy investor downvotes, people care because it makes them mad. They see “supposedly” their money taken away.
About Bernie. I was puzzled too when he downvoted the Vaxx article. He’s one of the biggest investors here. One of the reason we all can earn money. He is the one who destroyed the scammer who upvoted himself as I described in my previous comment too. Not only was he partly the reason that Steem is a prosperous place, but he is daily returning over 400 bucks in rewards back to the reward pool. Sometimes he is blunt, that’s just the way it is. From some peoples perspective his “directed wrath” is off. One always flags something when he strongly disagrees with what is happening in the particular article right? It can be plagiarism, it can be reward pool rape, it can be promoting of stuff that you’re strongly against. Censorship is when you CAN’T say what you will. If anyone finds enough support, he can be visible again. Also what you write can never be removed from the Blockchain. It partly is censureship yes. Everyone on Steemit starts “censured”. No reputation, no stake, no potential reward on posts, no visibility. Upvotes “remove” this state, and downvotes bring you back to that state.
Well…both ways are possible. From the downvoters perspective, there was problem in the work itself (that should be discussed with author). Also the problem never was the valuable upvote, but the amount of them on the amount of posts daily (my assumption). That can be discussed with both. Author can either start posting less and still have the valuable up vote ready, just not that often, or he could have contacted blocktrades. Well I think we will agree that morally it would be right to contact someone right?:D
You sure have strange wishes:D I hope that you will not be downvoted…