You need to care also about how well it goes down with people on the outside when they see these mass flagging drama campaigns and have no idea what is going on, or really what exactly the problem is, or the rules. That's far more likely to leave a bad impression and put then off
If the goal is you're concerned about leaving a good impression with people, then you will understand that you don't want your attempt at a cure to make things worse.
People don't want to find that they leave YouTube for the supposedly censorship free Steemit and then find just a single user with a powerful enough vote has the power to screw them over in many ways more than YouTube.
I agree that the cure should not cause more damage. But the first sensible step is to all agree that there is a problem.
If these solutions help make steemit more accessible and rewarding for new community members, I am for it. Even if it highlights problems in the short term.
One thing we can learn from Facebook is that the value of the social network comes from users. The more users who come over to steemit, the more value STEEM has, it's a win win for everyone
Actually, more users does not necessarily always mean more value for STEEM, in fact it's quite possible for users who never buy in to steem to reduce the value of steem by using up network resources, driving the costs of hosting servers up, and making the place less attractive for potential witnesses and investors.
I agree to a degree. If we attract lots of short term money chasers, then yes.
But I am seeing new users sharing genuine stories about their lives. That gives me hope.
If steemit even gets to 1/100 value of Facebook, the server costs will be immaterial. That would be a 5x multiple growth. All within the realms reality in my opinion
I would love to see this topic move to where I see is a more productive area, but I have a tendency to end up with quite long posts opening posts so i understand if someone feels too exhausted at the idea of reading it all. At least initially, i find it saves time if not having 10 back and forth replies just filling in the gaps I left out..
I totally agree with you that the first step is recognise there's a problem but the next step makes the first step meaningful and without this part it can go from being something useful to harmful.
If you take away haejin's self voting and most of the significant complaints will stay standing because everyone is caught up in this idea that haejin represents "the problem" and since the problem is also that poor quality content gets heavily rewarded and haejin's case involves something he DOES have control over, they get this idea that it's all caused by something people have have control over.
This idea that he is "abusing" steemit so that without this exploit that would solve the problem. You know they see it this way because otherwise there's no way to see flagging as being effective to punish those who "abuse the reward pool" until they stop. They don't seem to realise that what they really don't like, the idea that post rewards don't fit quality, is a problem, not caused by people you can get angry at it's something that is a fundamental flaw in Steemit and that all this aggressive flagging and trolling campaigns are just damaging Steemit with no hope of success.
I am new here, so maybe I've not seen it the same way as you have.
I think there is no centralised person in control of steemit. It is a decentralised social network. So it is up to the community to decide who should get rewarded and if enough people feel that the likes of haejin are "abusing" the platform, then that is a valid view.
Second, I am much more positive about steemit than a few others. I remember the early days of Facebook and other social media platforms. They had the same problems in that low quality advertising made their site look cheap. We basically have the same problem, but with a blockchain twist. I genuinely believe that as more people come into steemit, it will be easier for the community to self regulate.