I've received downvotes I've disagree with in the past but not on the scale @krnel has. The most interesting thing I've read on the subject is this post which was resteemed by @dantheman.
Those who have more risk more. When large stake holders downvote their downvote are remarked and make huge waves in the community even when nobody dares to address them. Those downvoters risk losing support if the community doesn't agree with their downvotes. This is all detailed in the post. I don't know if downvotes are truly a necessity. It's something to keep in mind though.
Excerpt
One More Thing: What about Power Imbalance?
Some people have pistols while others have nukes. The short answer is that those with nukes fear being nuked by others with nukes as well as an uprising of the masses. Anyone who gets persecuted by a nuclear power will find sympathy from the other powers who see the entire economy suffer as a result. Those with nukes (large steem power balances) have the most to lose if social oppression kills the Steem economy.
So should we eliminate down votes? No. We need to carefully consider adding new features to further counter-balance voters who have nothing to lose. Only then will we be able to put a stop to reckless down voting by whales and other users.
That change is welcomed but it wouldn't be enough to counteract a single flagging whale bully. Better than nothing of course, linear curve for rewards is asked since long time from what I know.
And how do you change how it works without compromising the value of SP, and therefore the market value of STEEM, on which the economics of Steem stand upon?
Allowing the community to vote against a player who is behaving badly regardless of how much SP they have is a simple solution. The votes could have different levels of consequences depending on how many people vote against them and the level of the vote. One other option that I really like is requiring them to have a certain level of reputation and posts before they have any significant power towards upvotes or downvotes. A person with a rep under 70 would not have very much influence when they flag or downvote someone. Checks and balances need to be in place so the community can help to correct those that are detrimental to the prosperity of steemit as a community and the value of the tokens.
You have put quite a bit more thought into this than I have and you have some very valid points. I never really thought as much about the bandwidth and storage but see how that could be a major problem now. I think your solution makes sense and at the least the community should discuss these sort of things. I guess the other option is just wait and see if these problems continue to cause issues and the devs can just fix leaks as they go. I have a feeling it will be dealt with eventually, but at what cost?
I can't answer you cause I am not economist nor programmer. I am a guy using websites, reading and writing. So if a whale flag a guy (manually or with bots) it's a problem, cause a single whale can compromise the all post / user. Can we agree on this?
The value of SP was huge interest (not now, only in the beginning) it's giving rewards, but I would not say it's flagging people because you don't like what they write or you take revenge for godonlyknows.
Exactly!
I've received downvotes I've disagree with in the past but not on the scale @krnel has. The most interesting thing I've read on the subject is this post which was resteemed by @dantheman.
https://steemit.com/steem/@bitcoindoom/why-down-votes-and-flags-are-an-unavoidable-consequence-of-game-theory
Those who have more risk more. When large stake holders downvote their downvote are remarked and make huge waves in the community even when nobody dares to address them. Those downvoters risk losing support if the community doesn't agree with their downvotes. This is all detailed in the post. I don't know if downvotes are truly a necessity. It's something to keep in mind though.
Excerpt
That's what's being done most likely in the next hard fork. So complaining, knowing about that change, doesn't do much.
That change is welcomed but it wouldn't be enough to counteract a single flagging whale bully. Better than nothing of course, linear curve for rewards is asked since long time from what I know.
And how do you change how it works without compromising the value of SP, and therefore the market value of STEEM, on which the economics of Steem stand upon?
Allowing the community to vote against a player who is behaving badly regardless of how much SP they have is a simple solution. The votes could have different levels of consequences depending on how many people vote against them and the level of the vote. One other option that I really like is requiring them to have a certain level of reputation and posts before they have any significant power towards upvotes or downvotes. A person with a rep under 70 would not have very much influence when they flag or downvote someone. Checks and balances need to be in place so the community can help to correct those that are detrimental to the prosperity of steemit as a community and the value of the tokens.
You have put quite a bit more thought into this than I have and you have some very valid points. I never really thought as much about the bandwidth and storage but see how that could be a major problem now. I think your solution makes sense and at the least the community should discuss these sort of things. I guess the other option is just wait and see if these problems continue to cause issues and the devs can just fix leaks as they go. I have a feeling it will be dealt with eventually, but at what cost?
I can't answer you cause I am not economist nor programmer. I am a guy using websites, reading and writing. So if a whale flag a guy (manually or with bots) it's a problem, cause a single whale can compromise the all post / user. Can we agree on this?
The value of SP was huge interest (not now, only in the beginning) it's giving rewards, but I would not say it's flagging people because you don't like what they write or you take revenge for godonlyknows.