Thanks Sharon. Great comments!
I agree, the negative consequences of being on the end of a flag attack can be devastating, resulting in people losing heart, censoring themselves or even withdrawing from the community.
Solution: remove flags altogether and encourage overly sensitive types to use the MUTE button.
Yes, everyone's raging about Haejin and other steemit celebs abusing the rewards pool. This makes front page news. As I see it, they invest a lot of money into steem and get a ROI, just as I do when I upvote myself or pay a bot to do it for me :P
Those that organise flag attacks on opposing opinions are doing it sneakily though, covertly censoring people. Hardly anyone is taking it seriously. Certainly there is a problem with this and it's growing. That's why I called on three witnesses. I hope they can discuss this and find a way to deter those that repeatedly flag in attempts to censor opposing voices.
Thanks for your brilliant comment.
Anj x
Woah hold your horses. The argument that you invested so it entitles you to get that maximal ROI is way off base. I'll tell you what happens if you take this to the extreme: blank posts voted optimally every 2.4 hours. The platform health as a whole needs to be taken into consideration here.
Such a platform needs to keep an eye on disproportionately assigned value.
Removing flagging is not the answer, unless it is paired with a change to how value gets assigned to a post to prevent dumb scenarios like this. And it's not that easy either because there are less obvious ways to do the same.
I wouldn't say I get maximal ROI Eon. I make hardly anything here :P
Definitely that extreme scenario would be a disaster for the platform and I think we each have a responsibility to create quality content that makes it desirable to passing readers.
If all the millionaires decide to power down and take their money elsewhere, doesn't that mean the value of steem will go down for all of us? What is the incentive to invest one's money if there is no ROI? You're the maths guy, so I trust your analysis better than my own here.
Well, yeah. But the ROI shouldn't be from the voting and post payouts as far as an investor is concerned. It should be from (1) value of platform increasing, (2) possible "dividends", which already occur in the form of assigning interest to shareholders.
Participation is a separate matter, and I think it makes sense to separate the two. They can of course gain some from doing so, but they should follow the same etiquette as everyone else in thinking about the platform health as a whole.
I absolutely agree that anyone invested should be considering the platform's health as a whole. Unfortunately, some are in for the quick kill and don't seem to have the patience to wait for its overall value to increase. That's how it works in the real world too for some investors. Make a quick profit while it's possible and get out when the mainstream jump in.
It's beyond my knowledge, solutions to the problem of shark investors.