But not against the abusive users like Bernie. As far as I can tell, his low rep hasn't hurt him at all. Even with a negative rating, he can still flag people who don't deserve it.
Shouldn't that be something that other whales are supposed to do?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Nobody can take away his ability to flag whomever he wants. What they can do is put systems in place to review his flags and give compensating upvotes where the flags are undeserved. If enough people believe the his flags are systematically abusive, they could do an anti-bernie bot that upvotes to the same proportion as he downvotes, cancelling out his impact. With enough delegation, a bernie downvote would be something you strive for to game the system (because the compensating upvote would be worth more than the original downvote).
That this has not happened shows that either:
Possibly some combination of both. I do what I can to help educate (even when it's more of a rant like today)... but I am a single voice in the wilderness and have not established enough credibility for that voice to reach a wide audience.
Thank you for the calm and clear definition of what you think. But I have one more question. What is your idea of what the Steemit platform is for? Is it just for investors or for people who think that they can change the world? Is it just an investment or can it be for something more?
I think it's something that can change the world by distributing value to everyone involved.
For that to happen, though, people need at least a minimum level of understanding and a willingness to engage with each other in meaningful ways.
Wow its true i agree with this, they should be a review on every flagged post, if a post is flag and reviewed and doesn't deserved being flag, it should be compensated,