Not true. Downvoting someone does not mean they definitely did anything wrong. It could be for many reasons.
Maybe you think their post is overvalued, maybe you think they are reporting incorrect information, maybe you just wanted to downvote someone. There is no specific reason that one must follow to downvote.
The reason it is so easy for users to abuse the upvotes is because downvotes are essentially taboo. When you use one, people get upset and belligerent. Social media should allow users to cast their votes without fear of consequences. If someone wants to downvote you because you downvoted them, that is their right.
I am getting downvotes from one users emotionally disturbed posse for making a satire post about his technical analysis. Doesn't make me lose any sleep at night. And if I want to retaliate, I would feel well within my rights to do so.
Our perspectives on the purpose of downvotes clearly differs - which is why that which I said about down-votes seemed false to you.
It appears that we may also differ on whether there should be some kind of standard (or reason) governing the appropriate use of down-votes.
I personally feel that down-voting a post because one feels that it is overvalued (and for no other reason) constitutes abuse in its own right, just as I feel that down-voting a post because one disagrees with the context is also treading into that same territory.
Persons who agree with a post have the choice to submit their up-vote. The degree of up-vote is also their choice. In fact many choose to attribute less than 1% to their vote weight. That is fine as nobody is extolling upon them to toss their time-limited vote into one's hat.
In fact the passing comparison to a street beggar is quite appropriate to this context.
A beggar who offers a service - such as playing an instrument or shining shoes - is more likely to gain favour than the individual who is idle (not taking into consideration any pity factors such as kids or the like).
Furthermore, if you pass by a hundred beggars you are perfectly within your right to 'not' pitch your coin into their hats. However stooping to pick up a dollar from the hat of beggar because you feel that he or she has had too good of a day would... not go down well.
Likewise applies to dipping one's hand into that person's hat because you didn't like the tune that s/he was playing.
Should there be no consequence to the flippant abuse of one's ability to flag? I'd say that there should be - and I have spoken of such in the past.
Flags should be reserved for use as an educational tool correcting users who behave badly. Not a first resort, mind you, there are words and warnings for that - but for things like plagiarism, excessive foul language in comments, flaming and trolling, etc, then a flag can be a force for good for as long as it is clearly linked with the behavior that one is trying to discourage.
I am sorry to hear that you have encountered individuals who didn't appreciate your brand of satire. Quite frankly I'd consider a fair representation of such a compliment. You do not let it bother you because their behavior conforms to your idea of how down-votes should be used - as something impersonal.
I am still surprised that you are able to take that as coolly as you appear to have done - but this does indicate that you benefit from an outlook of a good degree of consistency.
I believe the fallacy here is that you are thinking the PENDING payout on a post is that users money.
The homeless person example isn't comparable because that is most definitely his money.
Steem has a 7 day pending payout period for votes to be decided, up or down. Until then you have $0 so a downvote doesnt matter. After 7 days, you have the payout. At that point, no one can take it from you.
I admit that when I look at rewards associated with a post - I see it as rewards that are slated for the work done on the post concerned.
I am used to seeing that carrot grow (or more often shrink) due to the way that Steem's value shifted - but to have another user diminish that carrot due to him or her feeling that the nutrients delivered to the carrot by other users was 'excessive' would ring more than a little hollow.
I am not inclined to consider this perspective a fallacy out of hand - and while I would agree that money that has been thrown into a beggar's hat differs from a share that has been slated to go the way of a post - it remains far from clear to me as to how a down-vote ofa reward - very potentially down to zero - is not to be taken as a slight against not only the would-be-beneficiary but also any individual who has up-voted the content in question.
Furthermore the 7 day payout period is a big part of the reason why Steem is currently facing a crisis concerning 'any' user appearing over-rewarded.
Surely that on-going saga has inspired support of downvoting as a solution - but the truth of the matter is that such is a short-sighted substitute for attention that really should be directed at Steemit Inc.
It is after all by virtue of, shall we call them 'oversights' that the present situation has come about - making Steemit vulnerable to celebrity siphoning.
Seeking to make it socially acceptable to use flags or down-votes to express anything less than a corrective measure would merely be enhancing the 'crabs-in-a-bucket' mentality that has been building among some within the community.
It will foul up the atmosphere - and we'll get to hear all kinds of abuse upon all levels of the Steemit ecosystem - and for all kinds of reasons - some a lot less nobel than others.
In spite of my strong emotions against the flippant use and abuse of flags, I concede that I do not yet have a long term solution in mind specifically tailored for the present situation.
As such I do believe that we are going to need to agree to disagree - our respective perspectives shared.
I disagree that we need to agree to disagree. At least on the overall topic.
You said you don't have a long term solution at hand ... neither do I. I do have a short term proposition that I have the means and desire to implement, host, and make available.
This will provide more information for determining a long term solution down the line.
We may not find any real solution without a hard fork at this point.
We can certainly agree that 'something' needs to be done about the current situation. :c)
Agreeing to disagree about anything is a healthy exercise that acknowledges that two standpoints each have their merits and where neither individual is particularly inclined to switch over to the other perspective.
It seems to me that your perspective is aimed towards users keeping each other in check by expending their voting power towards keeping any single user from getting over-rewarded for his or her efforts.
On the other hand I prefer to revisit the rewards foundation - to get a better idea of why content with value that is time-limited but admittedly useful to a person's followers is ultimately a lot better rewarded than posts of timeless value - and the helpfulness of which will only grow more apparent as time goes by.
A hard fork might indeed be necessary - but if such is the case then it makes sense to think through the consequences of potential fixes. A relatively recent past hard fork has had less than desirable effects from what I understand.
Yes. Because both flagging and down-voting signifies that one has done something wrong.
And if such is not the case then all the pro-down-vote arguments revolving around being over-rewarded ring worse than hollow.
Not true. Downvoting someone does not mean they definitely did anything wrong. It could be for many reasons.
Maybe you think their post is overvalued, maybe you think they are reporting incorrect information, maybe you just wanted to downvote someone. There is no specific reason that one must follow to downvote.
The reason it is so easy for users to abuse the upvotes is because downvotes are essentially taboo. When you use one, people get upset and belligerent. Social media should allow users to cast their votes without fear of consequences. If someone wants to downvote you because you downvoted them, that is their right.
I am getting downvotes from one users emotionally disturbed posse for making a satire post about his technical analysis. Doesn't make me lose any sleep at night. And if I want to retaliate, I would feel well within my rights to do so.
Our perspectives on the purpose of downvotes clearly differs - which is why that which I said about down-votes seemed false to you.
It appears that we may also differ on whether there should be some kind of standard (or reason) governing the appropriate use of down-votes.
I personally feel that down-voting a post because one feels that it is overvalued (and for no other reason) constitutes abuse in its own right, just as I feel that down-voting a post because one disagrees with the context is also treading into that same territory.
Persons who agree with a post have the choice to submit their up-vote. The degree of up-vote is also their choice. In fact many choose to attribute less than 1% to their vote weight. That is fine as nobody is extolling upon them to toss their time-limited vote into one's hat.
In fact the passing comparison to a street beggar is quite appropriate to this context.
A beggar who offers a service - such as playing an instrument or shining shoes - is more likely to gain favour than the individual who is idle (not taking into consideration any pity factors such as kids or the like).
Furthermore, if you pass by a hundred beggars you are perfectly within your right to 'not' pitch your coin into their hats. However stooping to pick up a dollar from the hat of beggar because you feel that he or she has had too good of a day would... not go down well.
Likewise applies to dipping one's hand into that person's hat because you didn't like the tune that s/he was playing.
Should there be no consequence to the flippant abuse of one's ability to flag? I'd say that there should be - and I have spoken of such in the past.
Flags should be reserved for use as an educational tool correcting users who behave badly. Not a first resort, mind you, there are words and warnings for that - but for things like plagiarism, excessive foul language in comments, flaming and trolling, etc, then a flag can be a force for good for as long as it is clearly linked with the behavior that one is trying to discourage.
I am sorry to hear that you have encountered individuals who didn't appreciate your brand of satire. Quite frankly I'd consider a fair representation of such a compliment. You do not let it bother you because their behavior conforms to your idea of how down-votes should be used - as something impersonal.
I am still surprised that you are able to take that as coolly as you appear to have done - but this does indicate that you benefit from an outlook of a good degree of consistency.
I believe the fallacy here is that you are thinking the PENDING payout on a post is that users money.
The homeless person example isn't comparable because that is most definitely his money.
Steem has a 7 day pending payout period for votes to be decided, up or down. Until then you have $0 so a downvote doesnt matter. After 7 days, you have the payout. At that point, no one can take it from you.
I admit that when I look at rewards associated with a post - I see it as rewards that are slated for the work done on the post concerned.
I am used to seeing that carrot grow (or more often shrink) due to the way that Steem's value shifted - but to have another user diminish that carrot due to him or her feeling that the nutrients delivered to the carrot by other users was 'excessive' would ring more than a little hollow.
I am not inclined to consider this perspective a fallacy out of hand - and while I would agree that money that has been thrown into a beggar's hat differs from a share that has been slated to go the way of a post - it remains far from clear to me as to how a down-vote ofa reward - very potentially down to zero - is not to be taken as a slight against not only the would-be-beneficiary but also any individual who has up-voted the content in question.
Furthermore the 7 day payout period is a big part of the reason why Steem is currently facing a crisis concerning 'any' user appearing over-rewarded.
Surely that on-going saga has inspired support of downvoting as a solution - but the truth of the matter is that such is a short-sighted substitute for attention that really should be directed at Steemit Inc.
It is after all by virtue of, shall we call them 'oversights' that the present situation has come about - making Steemit vulnerable to celebrity siphoning.
Seeking to make it socially acceptable to use flags or down-votes to express anything less than a corrective measure would merely be enhancing the 'crabs-in-a-bucket' mentality that has been building among some within the community.
It will foul up the atmosphere - and we'll get to hear all kinds of abuse upon all levels of the Steemit ecosystem - and for all kinds of reasons - some a lot less nobel than others.
In spite of my strong emotions against the flippant use and abuse of flags, I concede that I do not yet have a long term solution in mind specifically tailored for the present situation.
As such I do believe that we are going to need to agree to disagree - our respective perspectives shared.
I disagree that we need to agree to disagree. At least on the overall topic.
You said you don't have a long term solution at hand ... neither do I. I do have a short term proposition that I have the means and desire to implement, host, and make available.
This will provide more information for determining a long term solution down the line.
We may not find any real solution without a hard fork at this point.
We can certainly agree that 'something' needs to be done about the current situation. :c)
Agreeing to disagree about anything is a healthy exercise that acknowledges that two standpoints each have their merits and where neither individual is particularly inclined to switch over to the other perspective.
It seems to me that your perspective is aimed towards users keeping each other in check by expending their voting power towards keeping any single user from getting over-rewarded for his or her efforts.
On the other hand I prefer to revisit the rewards foundation - to get a better idea of why content with value that is time-limited but admittedly useful to a person's followers is ultimately a lot better rewarded than posts of timeless value - and the helpfulness of which will only grow more apparent as time goes by.
A hard fork might indeed be necessary - but if such is the case then it makes sense to think through the consequences of potential fixes. A relatively recent past hard fork has had less than desirable effects from what I understand.