Please rethink using the downvote in this manner. It sets quite a bad precedent. There's nothing offensive or objectionable in this post, even if you disagree with it 100%. And by the standard you are setting here, MANY other posts should be downvoted for the very same reason.
But the fact is that posts have a shelf life and ideas are going to get recycled. At the very least, new people to the platform are going to have their own take on things. Not to mention, it's understandable and expected that people will want to personally present this kind of information on their own blog to their own audience.
We should be encouraging that. Instead we're downvoting him while encouraging others to not only bash him but also to have an entitlement mentality and complain about their own lack of success on the platform? Why would we do such a thing? Are we trying to shoot ourselves in the foot here?
This is exactly what I'm thinking. Doesn't look very good that voting power is used in this way. It makes people want to go and check if its Ok to post about something posted yesterday, even a a week ago.
I thought this is what we were trying to get away from. Guess I was wrong.
The problem with the spreading of flagging abuse is a problem with the platform as it stands now (in Beta). Flagging content is essentially accusing the poster of breaking community rules and social consensus. Just like in the legal process the accuser and accusations should be prominent and clear, and for a social network like this one, it should also be extremely efficient.. My recommendations reiteration from an earlier post is 1) clearly post the social consensus (rules) on the menu bar 2) Add additional functionality to the Flagging feature which will provide username and the particular violation selected from an imbedded list. Doing this will avoid the flag abuse that is beginning to run rampant
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.
Refereces
https://steemd.com/crypto-news/@dana-edwards/attention-based-stigmergic-distributed-collaborative-organizations
@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.
@tombstone I 100% agree.
I agree in your reply here. And the mechanism of flag (downvote) and whale (over-aggregated steempower) is creating a risk of abusive censorship - no matter what their position is.
Remember when my post was downvoted because a whale thought it was making too much money? Right, who cares.
If whales are going to downvote for arbitrary reasons then they have the power to do it. The only thing any of us can do is outline the reasons we will downvote in advance so that the reasons aren't arbitrary. I've outlined my curation criteria but I'm not a whale.
The precedent has been set already only because now it is happening to someone high profile it's blatantly obvious.
Just because the precedent has been set doesn't mean it should continue. It's bad for the platform and it should stop. I first brought this up 3 months ago.