No not at all. You can get downvoted simply for making too much money on a post if a whale decides. The curator whales decide the value of a post with or against the preferences of the community, not because I agree with the whales doing this but merely because it's an observational statement that if they have the power to do it then it's allowed. No sense in complaining about something they are allowed to do in this instance unless we will complain about it in all instances.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@dana-edwards: The purpose of voting is not for any individual (including a whale curator, which I happen to be) to decide the value of a post. That's what the rewards algorithm is for.
The job of a curator is to indicate whether or not they like a post (upvote) or whether they believe a post is offensive, constitutes spam, is plagiarism, violates copyright laws, etc (in which case they should flag it).
Yes, they are "allowed" to flag a post for any reason. But that doesn't mean they are using it as it was intended, or that misusing it is in the best interest of the platform. In fact, it is not. And if they keep doing it, what we're going to start seeing a lot more of is a) downvote wars and b) cries of censorship.
I'm going to do what I can to stop that from happening.
I in fact have been making an issue of this problem, long before the incident with TDV. you can browse through my posts. Also, most of the other times I've called this out have not been whales doing the violation, but others. However the incident with TDV helped me to understand one thing: The rules are not clear. That, or my original assumptions are wrong (i don't think this is the case). You are correct that currently the whales (or anyone for that matter) can flag for any reason. My thinking is that it is an inadvertent gap in the programing. I understand that you believe it is purposely built this way. I guess we will see.