You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: @berniesanders just flagged my post! Is there anything I can do?
I don't see what the issue is.
Its his vote, he can cast it however he likes.
Obviously i can only speculate on his reasons, but if i had to venture a guess, it would be that your post simply rehashes all the information we've been hearing about pizzagate ad-nauseam for a month.
Its basically a pizza-gate recap post. And there have been like 9,468,312 of them already. I dont really care as I avoid the entire topic, but i can see how someone might think it was done to death.
It wasn't a vote, it was a flag.
Steemit's guidelines for flagging:
It's not intended to be a down-vote or a disagreement tool, rather a way to discredit dishonest actors and to punish hateful behavior.
No, it was a vote. The flag icon, as well as calling it a flag and that insipid description are completely made up by the UI.
this is how i would flag this post in the cli
vote sigmajin richardcrill berniesanders-just-flagged-my-post-is-there-anything-i-can-do -100 true
this is how i would upvote it
vote sigmajin richardcrill berniesanders-just-flagged-my-post-is-there-anything-i-can-do 100 true
Now if you want to follow a bunch of made up rules, thats your perogative. But the whales do not. So what youre really supporting is a double standard. 1 set of completely arbitrary rules for most users and a completely different set of rules for the whales.
what happens on the blockchain is what matters, and the UI misrepresenting reality in this respect is counterproductive
I think people find little to no resistance in accepting the condition that higher SP accounts have greater voting power. It's both logical and fair that people with more at stake have more to gain from using the platform. Indeed, they should earn more from curation rewards and they deserve more say in how Steem is distributed.
However, when it comes to people losing money over votes (flag, down-vote, or whatever you prefer to call it), while it may still appeal to the aforementioned logic, I'm not so sure that it's seen as fair. The platform is set up to treat the up-vote and down-vote at 1:1 weight, but human psychology doesn't treat the monetary effect of those two sides of the scale at 1:1, probably something closer to 1:10, or maybe even 1:100.
To make my perspective a bit clearer: I'm convinced most users here agree that getting "majority vote" in terms of up-votes (on the scale of 10 to 1, or more) and STILL ending up with no payout and a negative reputation hit, due to a single high-SP account down-vote...well, it's a bit of a turn-off, to put it one way.
If we're after appealing to the masses and retaining them, then this topic of setting up the scales to fit our psychological (or, perhaps more accurately, "societal-imposed") model of "fairness" is of utmost importance.
Again, 100 upvotes to 2 downvotes resulting in negative reputation - that's a difficult one to sell as fair, even for the greatest of liars...er, I mean lawyers.
Now, if we were to set up the down-vote to remove the equivalent of the average weight of all prior votes, or average weight of votes within X amount of time...THAT might be a bit fairer. Now, you can't suddenly lose all the monetary gains of 30 - 40 upvotes to a single, disgruntled whale.
Hell, we can even allow for whales to have the equivalent of three or four times the average weight of upvotes in their downvotes. That might even pass off as fair, as, like I alluded to earlier, people can accept perks to high SP, TO AN EXTENT.
I admit, "fairness" is a subjective term. But there's a point at which the far majority agrees that something is or isn't fair and I fear that the pendulum has swung a tad too far into the unfair end in this current model.
Currently, my feeling is that the devs of Steemit intended to make it a bit of an "unwritten rule" that people not "disrespect" others by acting as if all will be okay by treating the up/down vote at 1:1; hence, providing the flag option along with GUIDELINES vs. PUNISHABLE LAWS (for abusing the rules), aiming at getting users to only use that option lightly and with extreme regard for the message that might be received on the other end of that action.
I think that experiment failed. Now it's time to scale down the weight of the down-vote, with respect to up-votes.
Remember, this is about appealing to mass acceptance. We're trying to reach consensus on what is fair, IF we're after mass adoption and user retention. If our sole concern is competing for monetary gains - a very short-sided outlook - well, then kiss your dreams of Steemit being a formidable rival to Reddit/ Facebook/ Twitter/ etc. goodbye, cuz the pure-greed approach will run this into the ground, IMO.
Exactly! Thank you!
See, the whole problem here is that you think what jamesbrown said was true, but it isnt. Its a vote. Nothing more or less. Steem rewards are based on a consensus algorithm and bernie didnt consent. So you got less rewards.
Ned, DTM, smooth, and all of the whales do and have done exactly what bernie did -- downvote material that they feel is overvalued, overexposed, or potentially harmful to the platform.
The problem is that you look at it, and you see the UI's ill-thought-out, poorly designed interpretation of it as a big red flag, and you think youre being attacked. Youre not.
The myth that a downvote is anything but a vote is one of the most harmful steem misconceptions out there. it creates a culture of negativity and is a large cpontributing factor in the huge reward disparity.
He just gave his reason. I avoided it too until I finally heard enough that I decided to check it out and was very surprised.
I'd find his reasoning a lot more objectionable if there were already not such a deluge of pizzagate stuff.
To me "pizzagate is stupid" is a bad reason. "Pizzagate is stupid and weve already heard about it" is an OK reason. Especially when the post in question had significant payout even after the flag.
Also, more than a few of these pizzagate types generally act like shitheads.
I literally got called a child molester by one of them in this thread and lifeworship below is talking about finding out where people live.
I don't think having a post at the top of trending (potentially) to whip these guys into a frenzy is necesarily a good thing.
if you read closely, i threatened no one. i only stated facts, except for the one ad hominem. i've been called worse here, and no one ran to my defense.
"he'd better hide" is an unambiguous threat. A statement of fact can also be a threat. "i know where you live and i own a firearm" is a threat. If you say that to someone, they can definitely get a TPO against you at least, maybe stalking or harassment charges.
You 100% intended to convey a very specific meaning. That you could find out where users live and take action against them.
did you just threaten me with a firearm? that is way worse than anything i ever said. no threats here, only seeking justice. i didn't know there would be so many people trying to stop justice, because they are tired of hearing about a subject. pretty petty reason to protect pedophiles, if you ask me.
my statement was only to say that if someone is working to hide pedophiles guilt, i will do everything in my power to see them prosecuted when the arrests begin.
i 100% want to see people who are obstructing justice prosecuted.
if you don't like ongoing, open source investigations, you have a mute button, use it.
I wrote what I wrote because I believe it. I had barely checked out the articles I had seen on steemit. because I wasn't really buying it until today. The stuff I saw today convinced me so I wanted to show some stuff that I hadn't seen on steemit. It's probably already been posted before, but I hadn't seen it on here myself and I thought it was valuable info. I was really surprised how well it had done, but then i was just as surprised to see what @berniesanders did.