.png)
The flagging system = Censorship and a power monopoly which causes fear. Fear leads to bad content and people leaving this blockchain.
Here are my arguments why the flagging system is criminal, unfair & must be removed:
1. Downvotes are not equalized, the more Steem Power you have the more you can "disagree" with a post. A flag should always be worth the same.
2. 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.
3. Your content will be censored because you will lose a lot of visibility depending on how strong the downvote of the other person is.
Here are my solutions to improve the flagging system:
1. Remove it. If you disagree with a post then write why with a good argument so that people stop upvoting that post and obviously do not upvote it yourself.
2. Equalize the flagging power for everyone. For example, make 1 flag worth 50 cents.
Problem solved. Like this no more censorship, destruction of people and fear will disappear from this platform.
Fear leads to bad content, and because there is so much fear on this platform the content on Steem sucks.
Same for the Witness voting system, instead of making each vote worth 1 vote your vote is worth more the more Steem Power you which just fills the pocket of the people whose wallets are already exploding.
This is further motivation to finalize Alphamemes.
SteemSchool Website: Website
SteemSchool Discord Community: Discord
My ultimate goal as a Steem Witness is to improve the quality on many Steem based platforms and to maintain the Steem blockchain.
If you value what I do I would be happy if you would vote for me at the bottom of the Witness voting page. Simply scroll down, enter "valorforfreedom" click on vote and that's it. If I am in the top 50 you can also just vote for me there.
You can also vote for me by clicking on the picture below with my account name in it. Afterwards you simply have to log in with Steemconnect and I will receive your vote.
SteemSchool Website: Website
SteemSchool Discord Community: Discord
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.
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.
Current system for flagging is broken, as some like to use it maliciously. Maybe flagging could be just for plagiarism. Ideally people should just vote for what they like, and comment on, or simply ignore the stuff they don't. If only it could be that simple.
They won't remove flagging; they don't care, ..it's about da Moolah. Look at our voting power. We first need to build up SP to get it, but then it fluctuates depending on the FIAT currency value of Steem in the open market. But wait?!? Don't your payouts already vary with the market value? So why get less Steem when it is also worth fewer Dollars than before? This means that our payouts fluctuate much more radically than the value of Steem, this is an advantage to those who merely purchased Steem and do not have it powered up. Now go back to the first sentence. Schone grusse!
Good post - I always thought the flagging system is an act of aggression.
ie a negative action.
Good policy relies on positive actions.
(I'm not sure how you would fix the plagiarism issues/ problem, without flagging though..?)
I forgot the plagiarism issue, it is an issue of the blockchain which is not solved with the flagging system. You cannot remove content from a blockchain.
Aka plagiarism will forever be a problem that only the owners of the content can solve. Why should we care about it? It is not our content and despite that they will always find ways to moneytize plagiarism.
It is the only time I flagged. - The wanker was copying an pasting my comments - and making more off them than I was!
lol
That sucks!
Write below his comment that it is your own comment and link to your comment as proof so that people can see that he is a thief!
oh i did - after i took his votes off him..
Interesting idea, was there particular parameters why you chose 50 cents per flag instead of 10 cents.
If a bot war were to start up it would take 200 bots to produce $20 damage.
We could set the amount of "damage" depending on the size of the Steem wallet.
A plankton would lose nothing, a minnow 10 cent per downvote, a dolphin 50 cent per downvote, an orca 2 dollar per downvote and a whale 5 dollar per downvote.
Just an idea into the right direction.
Is that applied to standing wealth, or future earning potential?
Average total payout of the last 30 days.
For example if all minnows make around $10 total payout average per post in 30 days then a downvote could be adjusted to 10 cent. So it would take 100 downvotes to kill the entire total payout of that post reflecting that the community disagrees with it.
Of course such posts don't get much visibility so I would raise the downvote amount to 30 cent (per flag).
Thanks for making that detail clear.
I think it somewhat limits the harm that flags can do, but in my way of thinking, there should be no harm.
Flags should probably not exist.
Let me see how this works. I create content, you disagree with the reward, so minnows punish the whales disproportionately to stake. Whale powerdowns and leaves. Steem is a desolate place.
Is that a possible outcome in your scenario?
Yes, but whales don't create content, they invest, and that is a good thing if it supports people with smaller wallets. Because without Minnows Steem will be a dead place too.
I thought that nobody can downvote Planktons, Minnows will lose 10 center per downvote, Dolphins 20 cent per downvote, orcas 1 or 2 dollars per downvote and whales 5-10 dollar per downvote.
Just rough numbers, calculating the average earnings of Planktons, Minnows, Dolphins, Orcas & Whales per post would help to find a suitable amount per downvote.
if whales dont create content (not absolute, but they dont create much content), then how will downvoting really affect them? I dont see it as a powerful tool, except those who are more tech savy to create accounts, will be able to abuse whoever they want.
[Captain Phil]1. Remove it. If you disagree with a post then write why with a good argument so that people stop upvoting that post and obviously do not upvote it yourself.[/Captain Phil]
Hmm. Perhaps ONE STEP TOWARDS your more ideal solution would be to weigh the "comments with good arguments" AGAINST the power of the stronger upvoters (those with more SP). For instance, for each "whale" downvote EACH opposing comment could knock off a PERCENTAGE of the power of that downvote. This would AT LEAST provide SOME kind of a better BUFFER than the system we currently have - although I could be wrong. Just a thought...
I like the suggestion I made with adjusting the downvote to the total steem power of the account you are downvoting.
Here is the problem with your proposal. The one reason people buy Steem Power is specifically so they can censor content. Censorship instinct is what funds the platform which funds all our posts. How do you refute this argument?
The first time I hear that people buy Steem Power to censor content. Do you know any accounts that do that?
And how is that a problem with my proposal? I have offered solutions to exactly deal with the flagging problem.
This is not a good solution. It's very easy for anyone with some Steem Power to create hundreds of even thousands of accounts that are all set to perform the same action as one main account, which means that anyone can potentially remove all rewards from a post if they wish.
ye but its going to be a lot of work and if u do something like this u are a big a hole most of us are not.
so its going to remove 99% of the fear. of the normal stemmian its always going to be a hols out there trying the best to destroy other work or exploit the system but just see what Haejin has been doing here for many months its only working on fear, if a didn't fear his down vote a will have vote on him every day,
am not agreeing 100 on valorforfreedom but its a better solution.
on plagiarism we need a user who is owned by "steemit" who has a power two, removing users as a "police account" and so Steem Cleaners report to it ned to be run by people and have a good system on complaining etc, or just more bots like the Steem Cleaners
Thank you for your input NW.
I like your suggestions to remove plagiarism!
I think it will be just the opposite; if anyone with a thousand dollars can remove hundreds of dollars from the posts daily, you need to begin to fear everyone, and not piss of a single person without risking loosing all your rewards. See the other reply I made to this comment thread for some calculations on how a $1,500 investment can remove $500 every single day.
Thank you for your input.
It may not be the perfect solution but it would make it exceptionally harder to abuse because creating so many accounts costs a lot.
Only people with a lot of cash could do that, and if they do that the people would hate them for it. @Zombee did that with 10 accounts but to reward himself, he lost his 500K delegation from Ned.
I see your point, but I still disagree with you. It's really easy to make new accounts, and they only "cost" 6 Steem per account. So a person with 600 Steem (valued at something like $1,500) could make 100 accounts, which could all flag 10 times each day to remove rewards without loosing their Voting Power. This means that a $1,500 investment will allow you to remove $500 from authors every single day.
Keep in mind that this can be done anonymously, so it will be easy for something with a few thousand dollars invested to remove all or most of the rewards from people they don't like.
Thanks for your input Valth, I see this would be a big problem.
You're welcome. And sorry if I was seeming harsh, I'm just trying to share my view of the problems with this potential solution. But I agree that something needs to be changed if we want Steem to grow, so I'm glad to see that you are trying to improve it by sharing your ideas ;)
No problem, I was just too lazy to counter your argument at that time so here it goes: Remove the flagging system and make the top people think of a better system.
And you were not harsh at all!
Just completely reworking the flag system into something different might actually be just what we need at this point. It's just so difficult to find a system that is both fair to users, investors, bloggers and curators at the same time, without one of these groups feeling like they could get screwed by the system. I'm kind of glad it's not my job to make the decision, because it seems next to impossible to please everyone.
What do we do about reward pool rapers like Haejin for example? This guy is like an argument to keep the criminal flagging system working.
My suggestion: There is no reward pool rape, people with big wallets own large parts of the reward pool.
Nothing is lost from the reward pool if they use their own Steem power to make cash.
People are just mad they don't share it with them.
(Ned lies when he says that the reward pool is shared among everyone.)
It belongs to him, it is a problem of the Steem blockchain, which is a result of short sightedness from above.
Nobody should have been able to invest so much into the blockchain.
Sure, then it would take longer for Steem to take off, but it is clear for everyone that this will not happen anyway because the reward pool is owned and not for the masses.
Steem is for investors to make big cash, content creators will have a really hard time making money here, you need to do Steem full time to make it, and most people are not willing to do that.
The masses will never come here, Steem will stay a small community and the Steem growth charts confirm my arguments.
We are still only 60K people even tho 1 million signed up on Steem.
nice @valorforfreedom😄
Dude... are you ill?
If you read a little about what this guy posts and comments about then you would know that this is a bad idea...
However you might not have seen that at all... you are just passing through.
Your content on your blog does not look bad, but this comment you have posted dozens of times as it is and is consider spam.
So just as much as you gave advice about resizing images... let me give you advice and stop posting comments like this on people's posts. Your comment has nothing to do with the post and it's kind of offensive.
nice post about the flagging @valorforfreedom