I think there's a culture of victimhood that makes it worse than it is, everyone has the right to upvote and downvote anything as they please. Be it due to the content or the person and relationships they have with various stakeholders
I'm not here to take sides I feel that is a waste of time, I'm only here to defend everyone's freedom to choose what they do. The who where and why of where steem is allocated is irrelevant in my opinion and trying to say who should have it and what they should do with it isn't up to us, but the individual.
I feel the market regulates itself over time.
I downvote every day to anyone who purchases upvotes and get my fair share of downvotes in return. I know personal opinions are hard to put aside and you have the right to feel however you want but I just feel its a microcosm of the bigger picture.
At the end of the day, we all just want to distribute the inflation that all upvotes and downvotes do
yes.. this is the wild wild west.. everybody can and should technically do what he or she wants.. but same applies to us.. if we decide that we find this behavior bad its 100% our right to organize something against those crazy downvote schemes..
Oh yes for sure if its a wide spread systematic issue i can totally agree things should be changed but this school yard who picks on who thing i dont see the point of making a fuss about
That I agree to. Flagging means "I think you should get less rewards" - and it's for each of us to decide why.I'm against "counter flagging" - but telling people about what happened, that is reasonable.
I never flag without giving my reason! I think it should be common courtesy! Perhaps a prompt when you downvote to give a reason or select from a list of popular reasons may help
Hi, @chekohler, your answer gave me a funny thought:
This is a nice paradox: having the courtesy to explain to someone why they have been flagged. To use an analogy in the physical encounter, it would be like punching someone unexpectedly in the stomach. Then you would bow politely and say gently, "I punched you in the stomach because I don't support your action."
The other person who has just been punched answers without resentment: "Thank you. I needed that."
In so far as both acknowledge the premise that one should express one's disagreement to someone with a measure which, precisely because it is considered painful, should have its effectiveness, everything is fine, isn't it?
An even more beautiful paradox would be to ask in advance whether the person I am about to downvote has the same premise? If he answers "yes", then my intention to flag him would meet with no resistance. The complete agreement to be flagged would make itself superfluous in this way, wouldn't it?
.....
Late thank you for dropping by @erh.germany and your comment.
Somehow I didn't notice your comment until just now.
Isn't better to give people explanation or not to give one?
Cheers, Piotr
I just was sneaking in as I did not want to engage too much in the debate.
I give you a reply I started later on this comment of mine, in exchange with logiczombie on his blog; especially on the given example you picked out.
Maybe this answers your question? - Here is the thread:
https://steemit.com/ethics/@logiczombie/q4z1zt
Greetings :)
It's a simple question.
(IFF) you don't have a reason for your action (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
(IFF) you claim to have a reason but refuse to reveal it, claiming it is secret, or unimportant, or "just too complicated to explain" (THEN) your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
By that logic no one would flag anyone becAuse everyone would claim innocense and nothing would get done! You’re basing your assumption on the ideal that we are all going to be blatently honest and fourthright which if we were would eliminate flags all together becAuse we all agree on the same set of rules
They ability to disagree using your stake is important or even more important than agreeing with your stake since you can flow capital into constructive action and away from destructive action
Oh, I wasn't assuming but only felt to speak about a paradox. I am not opinionating.
Organizing - I'm against "counter-flagging". But informing the Steem public about it is important and everyone can decide what they want to do.
Late thank you for dropping by @muscara and your comment.
Somehow I didn't notice your comment until just now.
why are you against counter-flagging?
Cheers, Piotr
Hi @solarwarrior
I just realized that I never actually thanked you for your supportive comment
Have a great upcoming weekend,
Yours, Piotr
Thank you for this amazing comment @chekohler
And I'm sorry it took me a while to reply.
Of course. Everyone can downvote anything as they please. However it's important to understand that there is no tool that would counter downvote abuse - something that is killing steem limited userbase and is bringing really terrible reputation outside of our blockchain.
ps. my publication seem to attracted wrong kind of attention. So many large downvotes. Crazy shit, heh?
Cheers, Piotr
It depends on your perspective of killing it’s killing users who want to spam, bot, content farm and now it’s showing steem for what it is, it id rather have a base of less abuse that is smaller than a huge base of free for all abuse!
As downvotes are killing accounts so was spamming botting and content farming killing the experience on a far greater level!
I think downvoting is a healthy equilibrium and attaching personal feelings to a system will get you nowhere! If people don’t like what steemit is doing then head over to a tribe!
Its up to the individual not the system bending every time a minority has a tiff