steem functions as 1 steem 1 vote. The more steem power you hold, the more powerful your vote is. Thats how the system maintains it's security. You can remove flagging, potentially, but then the community cannot reach consensus if there is a disagreement.
How should disagreements be handled without flagging? If you reduce the flagging weight to a fixed number, then that means that someone can just create an army of bots and downvote your content at will. The outcome by using that method can be easily circumvented.
- Imagine someone depends on Steem 100% for his income and you get a downvote that removes all the cash from your all your posts. That person won't be able to buy food or pay the rent, it is almost murder.
If you depend on steem 100% for your income, then you are no different from someone working as a freelancer who is subject to the cruelty of working for yourself. you are not guaranteed any security and your income is subject to consensus of value. If you post poor quality content that the community does not agree with, then those who have heavy investments should have a say in where their investment goes and they should be allowed to flag you.
I see your point of view, but I think you are missing the bigger picture.
1 Steem = 1 Vote = Bad voting system and it has nothing to do with security.
By argumenting with that person. If that person cannot be talked with then there is the option to leave your 50 cent downvote. If that person now builds an army of bots to downvote you then he will quickly become the most hated person on Steem resulting on mass downvotes on his own ass. #Karmaisabitch
Just because they invest much doesn't mean that their content is great. And if they disagree they can argument or use their 50 cent downvote.
My solutions are well applicable & I do see the bigger picture very well.
For the record, Im reading your reply with a superiority tone.
I'm not here to argue with someone. I'm here to elevate the discussion to produce something of effect. If you want to think your solutions are well applicable without addressing their faults (which to me, are very clear). Then you can stop your reply because I really don't care to argue.
But here is why I think fixed flagging value doesnt make sense.
You can become as hated as you want. You can have multiple accounts and have an army of bots lead by one particular account. It doesn't matter. All you do with fixed value flagging is starting bot wars. If you don't agree that will happen, then there's really no discussion to be had here, much less an argument.
Let's take this from another angle...
I am reading your comments @motoengineer and I see you offer an explanation of how the flagging systems works. That's good for newer users. Though I think that if I consider you and @valorforfreedom, you both have been on Steemit a while and have some decent followings and SP.
So instead let me ask you: Do you disagree that there is no problem at all with the flagging system?
Do you disagree or refute that the flagging system causes ZERO censorship? Because censorship is something that Steemit is supposed to have better than Facebook and other platforms.
Do you have any of your own suggestion of how to fix this issue if you think that flagging causes censorship?
"Superiority tone"
You are easily offended, you are not a good person to discuss with.
You won the argument!
You can still address the issues I brought up, for everyone's sake. You don't have to address them to me. It's your idea and your content you should defend logically if someone says its not plausible.