You are right, but it has to be done in an appropriate manner, would you not agree. There is no logic and reasoning in the way the guy was called out and so, you too are being biased if you fail to acknowledge this fact.
There is a problem with the flagging system and also the reward system which needs to be addressed urgently.
Flagging damages someone users rep and have the effect of sensoring them, it is not just used for lowering rewards and that you need to acknowledge. For that reason they should not have the right to flag users however they feel until the flagging system is fixed. It gets to the point that people are being flagged for difference of opinions. Totally unacceptable!
To be precise, It is clear that Haejin's pay has skyrocketed a bit too much after some 3 to 4 months and his rewards need to be lowered. However; it should be done in a professional manner. Otherwise we risk losing valuable users on this platform, especially readers (curators isnt really the right word until the system is adjusted-I do not consider a simple upvote to be curation).
You are probably right. That the system is not perfect, I am in total agreement with you.
Do you have any suggestions?
Are you really sure that taking people's 'rights' away is the only solution to this problem.
Literally the only 'rights' we have on this platform are to upvote and downvote with our stakes.
That reputation is nothing more than 'how many net upvotes and downvotes have you gotten' - this is not the best system, I think we can all see some of the potential and actual problems with this. People can self-vote a high rep or be attacked to a low rep, but generally on average the rep calc more or less tells us something. Acknowledging its limitations, I think it is more useful than not having the number.
Do you have any suggestions on how it should be better calculated?
Yes, I have a few suggestions; and you have a point about taking away people's right. What I really wanted to say is that people should be more careful with their downvotes and should always try to not use emotion when flagging someone. It shouldn't be done arbitrarily because it damages the users rep.
Here is one thing we need to adjust. When choosing the purpose for flagging, should it be for disagreement with payout, it should not affect the user's reputation. For other flagging options which are justfiable, like plagiarism etc, the effect on rep should come into play. Infact the flagging option should be changed to payment adjustement or we can remove it from the flagging option entirely and have it separate.
That flagging/downvoting could become a multi-step process sounds to me like it has potential!
;-) .
I'm not sure why someone who has thousands of loyal followers whom he is helping, would deserve to have his earnings lowered? A whale gets there by either adding thousands and thousands of their own dollars, or by adding the earnings of all the people who upvote them. I think cuttings what someone earns simply because they are popular would do nothing but deter people from trying and give the big whales even more power because you are making it harder for the little people to become whales.