I can't tell who is talking to whom on this post anymore, but since I know you I'll reply to you. Simply, I didn't state suesa's post should be exempt. I just pointed out that the assumption that she did it for money was incorrect. But yes the only qualm I had was that it was described as an artbitrary flagging, which is risky and controversial
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
They highlighted the problem didn't they? Even the large, heavily rewarded, many eyes already on accounts will use bidbots just 'for a laugh'. Nice role modelling.
For 'disagreement of reward' the content has to be judged on what it takes from the pool, paid or not. That content may not have been worth the value it would have made organically but went over 1000 even after flags. Error in judgement by reggae but saying that it wasn't her that ordered it rubs salt into the wound considering the circumstances and the one minute lockout voting which stops all minnows who support her from getting curation returns.
I agree that context might be important at times but a lot of the context in that argument was being left out of the conversation.
and yeah, the UI for long chains sucks ass.