when there are a free flags on the cards, more risk involved with what people might consider poor behavior.
Stanford prison experiment, one study of results of free power. Does this apply or translate to a free pool of downvote at no cost and no benefit to yourself, but have a free down vote. There is currently no method to prevent malicious downvoting, other than the so called Flag Wars.
I only see two real reasons to flag a post Plagiarism, and excessive rewards. The first one is 100% the posters issue and as such should fall on their back. The second is the greed factor. The bot sellers do not need to sell votes to every piece of content that wants to buy. The person that posted a nice post that got rewarded by curies or other vote trails have no control over who votes for their content.
All flags must be justified. If it is for plagiarism show the evidence if you are going to flag it. If it is for excessive reward then the top 3 reward issuers, example, @blah's, @blah-blah's, and @blah-blah-blah's should have their reward votes removed their votes grayed out, and their curation reward returned to the pool not their pocket. The only time a content creator's post should take a meaningful hit is when they stole from another persons work.
And when it comes to plagiarism, if a newspaper or media outlet has a click to share link on a story, is that really plagiarism when the outlet is asking you to share their story on your social media site?
I do agree waiting on one thing to happen before making needed change only means that the needed changes are never changed.
Depends. I have sometimes been rewarded a fair bit but I have never asked anyone to vote for me.
There is no incentive not to at the moment. once there are some free flags however, that changes.
This makes no sense because the people that issue the rewards have no control of who votes after them either.
I say yes as it is taking reward for it in a space that is about content creation. THey can share, decline rewards.
Most people know how much their vote is worth, If an individual wants to reward a chart with a $200.00 vote reward they know they did that. The chart poster may be in cahoots with the reward giver or not, it does not matter, it was the vote giver that provided the excessive reward. The poster did not ask for it.
No there are no incentives for bot sellers to change at all, I do not see the downvote pool changing that either.
And yes the re-poster should decline the rewards in some cases, but that is not going to happen, it has not happened on twitter, on youtube on any other social media site, while the poster may not be receiving rewards the advertisers on those sites do receive rewards,(such as steemits ad revenue), and the site owners receive rewards. In many cases the click to share links come with no exceptions. When you go to Wikipedia, their click to share images come with all the source and copyright info, so it is possible for other sites to do the same if they choose to when allowing/requesting people to share their content.
But the downvote pool system I think is a done thing and steem and the witnesses do not need my approval to make the changes. It is just another HF20 RC's are gonna set the people free campaign.
There is incentive from the buyer though and many of the bits biggest customers are likely to get flagged.