Alternative to Flagging for Overpayment: Dissenting Comments
Right now, if a stakeholder is of the opinion that a particular post is overpaid, they can ignore the post. Alternatively, they can flag the post which raises a few other consequence like hurt feelings and reputation side effects.
Instead, why not allow Dissenting Comments?
Dissenting Comments
A Dissenting Comment is just like any other comment in the system except that upvotes for these comments negate the parent. Rewards are not paid to the author of the comment and neither are curation rewards. Instead, the reward shares are negatively applied to the parent, reducing the payout of the post.
The main difference is that reputation is not adversely applied to the post, unlike flags.
Since these are dissenting opinions and not flags, users should be more free to upvote a Dissenting Comment, especially if they agree with the rationale.
If they don't agree with the exact rationale given, they can start their own Dissenting Comment with their own rationale.
A Chicken Story
Alice loves chickens. She's also a huge whale. So anytime someone posts about chickens, she upvotes them.
Bob doesn't care about chickens. He is also a huge whale. Bob decides to oppose some of the chicken posts.
So Bob writes Dissenting Comments on a few of the chicken posts. He also upvotes his comments a little, so that the payout for these articles gets diminish a bit, which keeps them from trending.
Others see Bob's rationale and decide to upvote or ignore (or perhaps flag) his dissent. By doing so, they are either adding to the weight of the dissent or subtracting from it.
Dave didn't care either way about chicken posts. But Dave sees Bob's rationale and finds that he agrees. So Dave upvotes Bob's Dissenting Comment as well, which further reduces the payout of the parent post.
Advantages
- There's more information to work with versus flagging.
- There's a tally of dissension displayed in dollars.
- There's a rationale to reflect on, perhaps swaying others to join in, or perhaps negating the dissent.
Disadvantages
- It seems complicated.
- Especially if flagging is still an option.
- Users might not realize they are effectively the same thing.
- Especially if flagging is still an option.
- How does the logic look when a Dissenting Comment itself receives a Dissenting Comment?
- In addition, how does the logic compound with threaded dissents inside a Dissenting Comment?
I did think of one problem, though I like this idea and resteemed the post.
It would require a limit of one dissenting comment per user. Otherwise a person could create multiple dissenting comments and up vote all of them which would become a force magnifier.
This actually could still be done with the collusion we see going on.
Whale A creates dissenting comment A and up votes it
Whale B creates dissenting comment B and up votes it AND A
Whale A also up votes B.
Perhaps a way to only allow a single vote of yours to be applied to a dissenting comment, so if you wish to put your dissenting vote on dissenting comment B and you already voted for A then you have to remove your vote from A first.
There is a sybil attack possible. A user, or multiple users, could post a dissenting comment at the same children level of a post and then users could upvote all of those yielding a situation that more negatively impacts a post than just a single downvote.
Also, what happens if someone creates a dissenting comment on a dissenting comment? How does this algorithm apply? Since there is a nesting limitation, the commentator who is at the last child level can 'win'.
Interesting idea, however.
The more I think about this, the more I like the idea. It seems like it would help to make things more equal. However, if flagging is still an option in this scenario, then it's function needs to be redefined. Instead of what it does now, perhaps it should be that red emergency handle on the city bus that no one pulls unless it's an emergency. Such as in the event when plagiarism is discovered, or when someone is being abusing to another user. Perhaps the flag could disallow the post author from posting anything for, say, 24-48 hours.
The problem I see with this, however, is human nature. If there are 2 options, then when someone's emotions take over they're going to choose the stronger weapon of the two.
This conversation always comes back to having a person or small group of people to act as the referee and make the call. In the case of the flag - if it were defined as I've mentioned above - when one tries to use it, perhaps it could be forwarded to a moderator of sorts to make an objective call based on reasonable guidelines. If the mod can tell it's retaliatory, for example, don't grant the flag.
We always say that anyone can use the flag however they see fit - but if your idea becomes implemented, then that ideology would shift to the dissenting comment, and I feel the flag would be something that requires approval.
It is an interesting idea, I would like to see it discussed. Resteeming.
Voted for this reason.
Same I don't actually like the idea but it's good to start a discussion. It would be nice to be able to categorize flags by reason which this would allow.
while i like your ideas, i came up with a different one today: the Peace Oracle. This person is like a Witness, except a node is not run. A peace node takes the place of a node, and everything the Peace Oracle does is to find a solution between warring individuals. We have been given the person for this role.
I don't really like this idea, if I don't agree with a comment I usually comment about why I disagree, with your idea in place I would have to think if I really want to post a negative comment on the article because it could diminish it's earnings, something I am not interested in. Frankly if a whale up votes a shitty post, that's the whale's problem not mine. I don't agree with flagging either by the way.
It's all about checks and balances - emphasis on "balances". If whales upvote shitty posts, it's not just their problem. It creates a perceived unfair balance of the reward pool that is to be divvied up among everyone else as much as possible, and perception is everything in the success of a platform like this.
Well, I'm not really into this for the money so maybe that's why I don't agree with you, I don't care who makes money.
I'm not necessarily stating I'm in it for the rewards (don't get me wrong, I'm not not here for the rewards if I'm to be honest with myself - just like 99% of everyone else here). I'm defining why it's a concern in the community. In fact, as best I can tell, it's generally less about the money and more about the ability for a select few to render someone's post mute and the public be powerless to counter it. Thus, the suggested changes to how flagging and downvoting work.
That is indeed an interesting idea. I like to experiment. Resteem.
I agree. Nice idea. You got a new follower :-)
I like the idea. This makes the reasons for flagging (or in this case, the dissenting comment) clear to everyone, which means it'll be a team effort.
isn't this the same as having up votes AND down votes? except with the possibility of being multiply counted?
The way I understand how @intertia has described, the short answer to your question is "yes". However, it sounds like the definition of what a downvote is and how it works is what's being discussed.