You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Idea For Upvotes & Downvotes

in #upvote5 years ago

... not only because it sounds less negative ...

Why should a thing which is (sometimes) negative not sound negative? :)
I like honesty.

Actually, I am not against renaming a flag a downvote or a downvote a redistribute, but I think in the end that's cosmetics only, and we are not discussing about the main problem here, which is that quite a percentage of flags is not given to prevent spam or plagiarism or also to redistribute rewards but just because of different opinions, personal animosities or just for fun.

For example for quite a while every single comment of @valued-customer got flagged automatically by a whale. That had nothing to do with discovering value or preventing spam (actually the whale added a spam comment under every flagged comment). And that's just one example among many.

Too many people left or even didn't/don't/won't join STEEM because of omnipresent flag abuse (just recently a potential investor from Switzerland told me he saw all these flaggs, even under official Steemitblog posts, and thus won't buy STEEM for sure).
We Steemians are so accustomed to this that sometimes we aren't aware anymore how devastating the impression for people outside of our microcosm is ...

Therefore I plead for a committee of elected users with some delegated Steem power from Steemit, Inc., which could decide (in case someone complains) if flags are justified or not, and if "yes" just counter them with upvotes.
In addition, accounts who repeatedly misuse flags in an abusive way (instead using them against spam, plagiarism etc.) could be flagged, as well, after a decision of that committee.

Sort:  

we aren't aware anymore how devastating the impression for people outside of our microcosm is

nailed it! and with each behaviour change tweak hardfork you dent that image even more, you'll never get top flight bloggers here while they have the fear of god about the flagging wars.

but I think in the end that's cosmetics only, and we are not discussing about the main problem here, which is that quite a percentage of flags is not given to prevent spam or plagiarism or also to redistribute rewards but just because of different opinions, personal animosities or just for fun.

I very honestly think that if we explained downvoting/redistributing better we wouldn't see so much retribution :-) Now people take it way too personal, believing 'their (!) money' has been 'taken away' and they start doing crazy stuff because they're so angry.

We Steemians are so accustomed to this that sometimes we aren't aware anymore how devastating the impression for people outside of our microcosm is ...

I'd like to think that the Tribes are solving this in part :-) Better trending pages and overall better categorized content. Not perfect yet, but getting there.

Therefore I plead for a committee of elected users with some delegated Steem power from Steemit, Inc., which could decide (in case someone complains) if flags are justified or not, and if "yes" just counter them with upvotes.

I'm not against some sort of committee where one can apply for 'rage flags' or 'revenge flags' or overall undeserved flags. Heck, @theycallmedan has offered to do this before with @curatorhulk, but I'm sort of assuming it wasn't used that much.

In addition, accounts who repeatedly misuse flags in an abusive way (instead using them against spam, plagiarism etc.) could be flagged, as well, after a decision of that committee.

Interesting :-) And thanks for discussing!

Now people take it way too personal, believing 'their (!) money' has been 'taken away' and they start doing crazy stuff because they're so angry.

I think there are different kinds of flags.

  • Flags against spam or plagiarism are naturally justified.
  • 'Redistributing' flags are a matter of taste because most of the time they depend on a subjective point of view (is a post overvalued or not?).
    Actually they can make sense, and I guess you are adressing these kinds of flags which you think shouldn't be taken personal. Right, I agree that there need not always be a personal aspect when flagging someone.
  • The third kind of flags is meant 'personal' for sure. Their only reason is to intimidate people, take all their rewards and destroy their accounts (in some cases the 'attacker' explicitly states that aim).
    Then there is no reasonable reaction than taking these flags the way they are intended: personal.

I'd like to think that the Tribes are solving this in part :-) Better trending pages and overall better categorized content. Not perfect yet, but getting there.

It is really difficult to convince investors of investing in STEEM. And I doubt that enough people will invest in all these hundreds of different tokens (without noteworthy value) as long as STEEM(it) doesen't work. I think people from outside the cryptoverse just have not enough time and interest to check all the different tribes. They want to see STEEM work - but just lets wait and see ...

Heck, @theycallmedan has offered to do this before with @curatorhulk, but I'm sort of assuming it wasn't used that much.

The stake should come from Steemit, Inc.. One cannot expect from a single individual to sacrifice his time and money for doing that alone (and also deciding alone which flags to counter or not).
I think it should be an elected committee ot trustworthy Steemians, like you for example. :)

And thanks for discussing!

You are very welcome, thank you too! :)

"Now people take it way too personal, believing 'their (!) money' has been 'taken away'..."

While this is true, flags do counter the influence and outlays of the upvoters who sought to allocate rewards. I am actually far more irritated when I see my upvotes countered by flags than when I see flags on my posts and comments. I spend my actual VP on my upvotes, and I do not on my posts, so flags actually cost me my stake when countering my upvotes.

Not my theoretical rewards. My actual stake.

Thanks!

"...I plead for a committee of elected users with some delegated Steem power from Steemit, Inc., which could decide (in case someone complains) if flags are justified or not, and if "yes" just counter them with upvotes."

I strongly disagree with this. Bernie was involved in a flagwar (surprise!) with @fulltimegeek, and now Steemit is censoring all FTG's accounts. This indicates to me that ninjaminer Bernie has some sway with Stinc, and such an elected body being dependent on Stinc stake would not be likely to counter Bernie.

Nothing is stopping users from electing and delegating to such a flag review board right now, although such a board would have insufficient SP to counter whale flags nominally. I have also been flagged by Stinc devs in the past, so have more evidence to align Bernie's interests with theirs.

tl;dr evidence aligns Bernie's interests with Stinc's, and expecting Stinc SP to counter Bernie's seems naive.

Thanks!

Steemit, Inc. should only delegate the SP, but of course not influence the decisions of the elected committee (elected by the community, not by Steemit, Inc.).
Of course that should be made clear before, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

Also the criteria of how to elect the committee needed much fine tuning. One could for example think about conditions like that every voter should be on STEEM for at least some weeks and had published some posts to prevent multi account voting. All that wouldn't be easy at all but worth a try ...

"Steemit, Inc. should only delegate the SP, but of course not influence the decisions of the elected committee (elected by the community, not by Steemit, Inc.)."

I just don't think that's possible. I am unable to recall an example of folks providing funding without having influence on how it's spent, other than taxpayers, and that's because we're just extorted.

Nevertheless, that would be my suggestion (Steemit, Inc. contributes only the SP, and the community elects an independant committee).
If Steemit, Inc. would agree to doing that, is another question of course ... :)

I agree with you.
No matter how you call it, it is the same and negative.
I don't like the flagging and I also do not like cheetah's comment 'this person... if this is a mistake contact via discord'. Cheetah does not check out each content just an account. If you flag/downvote give a reason and make it possible to undo it if you are mistaken.

Steemit already has a bad name and it is not really getting better.

It will never be the site @soyrosa is hoping for. Too much happened and the scammers and 'bad boys' will stay.

Most people do not read here, comment, I wonder if they invest time to find out if a post is plagiarism. That really takes time. Many people have more as 5 accounts on different sites and are not using the same username everywhere.

Good discussion, good points to think over brought up.
💕

Posted using Partiko Android

Steemit already has a bad name and it is not really getting better.

It will never be the site @soyrosa is hoping for. Too much happened and the scammers and 'bad boys' will stay.

Actually, I am still here, because I see much potential in STEEM. The idea of a censorship free, blockchain based social media site, where, in addition, people have the chance to earn some money, is just great.
But you are right, there are also many unsolved problems for now (and I admit not being really 'happy' about the fact of having lost quite some money by my 'STEEM adventure' during the last one and a half year!).

I hope that in the end optimists like @soyrosa and @theycallmedan will be right and STEEM becomes a huge success.

Concerning @cheetah, this bot plays an important role in detecting plagiarism. However, I also would prefer if its owner replied directly under the comments in case someone complains about (possibly) wrong accusations.