Steemit gives you the opportunity to convince the consensus of voters that you deserve rewards, nothing more.
The the consensus of voters you mean transisto? he is a one man dictatorial consensus of voters. Did you look at how many views and comments those 12 flagged contents contained? Are all post that point out a problem a "Whiny" post?
Steemit may give opportunity, but it is one person that decides if you get to be rewarded, (in this case), not a consensus of voters the voters spoke on those post by looking, reading, commenting and voting, and one person decided those casting votes did not know what they were doing.
The consensus of voters means the upvoters and the downvoters (flaggers) both. When a voter has a lot of SP, yes that voter will have a lot of influence, but that doesn't mean anything is being determined by 'one person'. In fact, in this case it was pointed out that more of the upvoting came from a single person than the downvoting. And that further discounts the many other (low- and high-SP both) voters who could vote on the post but choose not to (abstaining). Finally any rewards not allocated to one post or comment go to others, all of which have their own voters. So in no case are the rewards ever determined by a single person, far from it. The eventual rewards allocated are determined by the consensus (or lack thereof) between all of the voters.
I surrender. It seems that people for whatever reason do not want to understand the downvote. That is fine. The FAQ has a couple areas that talk about the downvote. Down voting is not by any stretch of the imagination any sort of consensus. If I were to down vote you It would have ZERO effect on you. Downvote only works one way. A person higher than you can downvote you, a person lower than you can not downvote and have an effect on you. That sir is how the down vote works, here is from the FAQ:
That is from the FAQ.
When you look at all the rewards that go out in one day, yes. When you look at this one case, this case only of potential rewards, it was ONE person who decided how much her reward should be. Not only affecting her reward, but any and all curation rewards attached to that particular post. So yes when you talk about all the rewards that are spread out among all the steemit content creators, and curators, one person did not decide how much the population received, just how much that one person received.
But I will go back into my shell and forget what the steem whitepaper says about bots, I will forget what the steemit FAQ says about down votes and I will blindly follow all the other sheep. Yeah right.