Regarding Transisto and Flagging
Recently, there was an issue that arose from flagging of certain posts by @transisto.
@michelle.gent has been a prolific fiction author here on Steemit. She's made it a point of serializing some of her content to release as individual posts. As an author who's done the same with some of my own work, I understand how that goes; I've recently stopped serializing one of my novels because I plan to publish it through Steemhouse Publishing on the Writers' Block.
A few days ago, @transisto decided to flag several of Michelle's serialized posts. They weren't full flags to reduce the value of her post to zero. Near as I can tell, and by his own admission, they were posts to reduce the value of her post based on viewership, timeliness, and popularity.
There's more than a couple of things wrong here, so I'll start with the first thing on my mind:
- "Size of Viewership" - I'm going to touch on this first because this is an absolute bullshit metric. Flagging as a method for dealing with reward imbalance is something to consider, and there's plenty of cases where I would consider that to be true. However, if one of your criteria for reducing a vote payout is because someone is relatively unknown, that disincents people from putting their best foot forward. Better to stick to mainstream posting and go with the flow, lest one of their posts catch someone's eye and they get a big bonus, only to be denied it later.
- Quality of Posting - Quality has always been subjective, and I've been consistent in arguing that people can vote based on what they think is quality. However, flagging posts based on that criteria opens up wide avenues for abuse. Say you think cyberpunk fiction is just absolute garbage. Say you're also privy to a sizeable flag. Well, based on this criteria alone, why not nuke all cyberpunk fiction? Quality does play a role, but we're talking the difference between a cat picture and any reasonably produced original content.
- Popularity - Given @transisto's actions, I'm assuming he meant whether or not the poster was popular, which ties back into viewership. If not, why are you punishing people for catching more attention?
This has raised a bigger question about flagging in general.
I don't think flagging should disappear or that it should somehow change functionally. I know those suggestions have been made elsewhere. However, I do think that there should be some clear standards for what should result in flagging and what shouldn't. The problem is that these decisions are, necessarily subjective.
That being said, I'm pretty sure we can all agree on some basis for flagging posts. Spam is an obvious choice. Something like child pornography would be another. Posts that are poorly constructed, or are copypasta are also reasonable to consider for flagging. However, when posts are flagged for "inadequate viewership" or not being supreme quality, users take notice. Users see these things.
I don't care who you are; the thought of hitting an amazing payday because a whale catches your posts and gives you a bonus is a huge boost of confidence. It's an incentive. Declaring, essentially, that users who get a big boost on their work don't deserve it because they're not popular enough to deserve it is ludicrous.
As one of the moderators, supporters, and users of the Writers' Block, this episode has been especially relevant for me. How are we supposed to encourage new authors to put their work out? How are we supposed to convince authors to leave their established publishing arenas to come to Steemit? This was damaging not just to @michelle.gent, but to the platform as a whole. I appreciate that @transisto doesn't think that novel-writing is a good fit for the platform. Thankfully, he's not the arbiter of what is or isn't good for Steemit.
Unless Steemit is supposed to just be about crypto, as @transisto indicated with his reward for a trending post in r/bitcoin or r/cryptocurrency, then we, as a community and as a platform, need to speak out loudly and vigorously to prevent this kind of flagging abuse. That's exactly what this, and flagging like this, amounts to.If you want to vote for me as a witness, cast your vote here! Scroll down until you see this text box and type in my name.
Like what you read? Follow me, @anarcho-andrei! You can also find me on PALnet and the Fiction Workshop on Writers' Block:
One small simple question.
How do we attract celebrities with this?
I am here to say it's incredibly stupid for an investor to flag anybody much ever at all. I really feel like this episode of Transisto deciding to play cop pretty much just makes him look like an ass, and has taught us all to tell people NOT to come here.
Does he WANT to make his investment completely worthless? Cause this is how you make your investment completely worthless.
It's inexplicable, inexcusable, erratic, unstable, manic and absolutely asinine behavior. Way to go Transisto, you are wasting your own investment by deterring anybody from ever coming here or writing anything on the platform, when asshole vigilantes can act like petulant children just because they got some of Daddy's money.
Bullies suck, and he's a bully.
Fuck that guy. Now come flag me, big man. Like we give two shits about your idea of what people should or shouldn't do here. Seriously. Come at me bro.
Seriously Mathieu, is this all you have to do with your lonely time?
I can understand flagging blatant spam and some of the garbage we've seen tossed onto the chain. There's plenty of operations that fight that kind of abusive posting, and I think that's healthy. Policing content that you don't think deserves the amount of rewards because "they're just not popular enough to deserve it" is bullshit.
Well yeah, illegal behavior like copyright theft is the kind of thing that will get the platform and the interface companies sued. So of course. Illegal is illegal. But spam, as much as it sucks can be ignored. We did on facebook. It's annoying but it never stopped me from succeeding around it. It's not something self proclaimed vigilantes will ever fix and who are they to decide anyway?
Especially when his posts are.....
I think @miti understand what flagging should and shouldn't be. I genuinely support his/her work and we share a similar philosophy on the matter. It would be nice if you can visit this link and give it a look: https://steemit.com/steemit/@miti/my-commitment-to-making-steemit-a-place-free-from-spammers
Thank you.
I don't like spam, but that account is so tiny nearly any spammer could crush it in retaliation. This work is being skillfully addressed by SteemCleaners and Witness Patrice though, for sure, with much more power behind it. All work that helps is good to fight spam though.
All the more reason to support it. There are tons of spammers with low Voting power. @miti will at least crush them. Any fight is helpful for the future of steemit.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is flag abuse pure and simple. I’m a writer of a serialized novel just the same as Michelle. Just exactly why @Transisto thinks novels are not right for Steemit, I’m not sure. Unfortunately he’s not a good enough writer to get his point across coherently. In any case who the fuck voted him arbiter of what’s worthy of upvotes? We don’t need or want a master editor thanks. Isn’t that meant to be the point of Steemit anyway?
I know right? That was my first thought:
"Man, it's a good thing @transisto is here to establish that novels don't have a place on here. I was confused about it for a second there."
Absolutely and fully agree with all of this. Why should I spend 20 hours writing a short story to publish on steemit when some fellow is going to come along and flag it into oblivion because he doesn't think this type of content should have success? It's going to shut out a huge portion of what should be what steemit is about. Spend those flags on things that deserve it, like copy/paste content, spam, plagiarized material, etc.
Exactly. There's plenty of material deserving of flags. Material that is original and has some value in the quality of the content should not be flagged because the user doesn't have a large following. This episode has exposed some of the most arrogant reasoning I've ever seen on Steemit, and I've seen a lot.
This issue sends ripples through the blockchain and many users are threatened by these flags. She's a good writer and her experience wanted and inspiring to us. Thanks for your thoughts.
"timeliness and popularity" as reasons for downvoting someone's posts are garbage fucking reasons.
like you said, "That being said, I'm pretty sure we can all agree on some basis for flagging posts. Spam is an obvious choice. Something like child pornography would be another. Posts that are poorly constructed, or are copypasta are also reasonable to consider for flagging." - NAILS IT.
these are obvious reasons for downvoting a post. anything beyond these reasons make you a petulant, petty asshole. period. i've seen plenty of posts that i don't agree with, primarily in regards to politics...the difference is, i just avoid those posts. what is the purpose of me disincentivizing other users for their particular political leanings? there's literally no reason other than to be petty.
michelle's great; this is the first time i've heard of transisto.
Well, he's going to be Steemit famous at this rate. I don't like getting involved in this stuff and I generally avoid flag wars like the plague because I don't have a dog in the fight, but this shit is ridiculous. The level of arrogance one would need to have to flag rewards because a user isn't popular enough to deserve them is incredible.
Story of my life... never been in with the 'in crowd' but I'm of the opinion that I'll never fit in because I stand out (and up, and forward) 😆
Worst of all I consider this kind of flagging to be a clear infringement of the authors right to receive the rewards and also a vote against the upvoters by someone who knows better. This alone isn't bad at all. It's like nuclear energy. It could go either way.
Infringing the rights of a person who is a threat to the platform that violate the NAP (Like a spammer) should be given the flag and have the rewards removed. But anybody who produce content has the right tor receive rewards even if it is unfair.
I barely make anything on my posts. But that's not a reason to call in re-distribution.
Controlling distribution is just commie nonsense.
I know that flagging of a post can send it to oblivion, and
If that is done from spite, it is
WRONG
↑Upvoted↑ and ←Resteemed→
You understood well enough!
Upvoted and resteemed!! This is an essential discusdion. As creative content makers we all have a duty to keep speaking on it and helping the culture to see the difference between a group working to support a talented artist and a corporate backed shitpost just looking to promote nonsense like how cool they are. Im gonna write a post about that after this . Hope we all can ease the burden of this flagwar
Please do! I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things with a lot of people, but I think more than most of us can agree that this kind of behavior needs to be discouraged. With extreme prejudice.
Well said. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention man.
I'm glad that I could do that. This is an issue that worries me not just as a Steemit user but as a fiction writer as well.
Your points about the stated rationale for the flags are well made and well taken. However, I'd like to respectfully discuss this comment:
Unfortunately, as long as the diametrically opposite actions of adding value to a post and removing value from a post are poorly described semantically, this kind of problem will continue to occur.
IMHO, these behaviors should be described symmetrically, using English words that are likewise precisely opposite in meaning--i.e., upvote v downvote.
If the platform needs "flags," there should be a separate channel for that. A "flag" means that something is abusive, gaming, or otherwise a direct attack on the platform (hacking or theft) or on the poster (ad-hominem).
Furthermore, it isn't really crystal clear to me why we really need the downvote function, but I will confess that I am not really knowledgable enough in the detailed workings of the financial side to meaningfully make a case for that.
Thanks for a great article!
😄😇😄
To better understand why downvoting is necessary I recommend to read this post. One paragraph in particular is very enlightening:
Thank you very much for the quote and reference. I will read that post and, hopefully, arrive at a better understanding.
I really appreciate your stepping in and offering me this very relevant information! :)
😄😇😄
Actually, 'laws of human nature' or game theory, is just a political tool and should not have a place in here (it was used to take control away from the governments and give it to the corporations so that they police themselves, for example, if you design a car with faulty brakes, the government cannot do anything, game theory says the corporation will recall the cars and fix them because it pays them to do so). We've all seen the results of those theories, but, more important, I thought that Steemit was based on the free market.
In other words, I write a poem, a story or paint a picture. anarcho thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread and pays me $200. Whatever else anyone else thinks of my talent, to anarcho it is worth $200 and nobody else has the right to impose his own opinion on us by taking away most of that money. In my view, not only is he trampling on my rights and the rights of anarcho to determine according to his tastes what the market value of my work is, he is also stealing the funds from both of us, for after all, he may claim that the money is not mine until the week is up, but he cannot make the same claim vis-a-vie anarcho. To him it will also feel as if his money was stolen, and so it will be so.
I am against flagging for any reason apart from controlling criminal behaviour, the rest of the time, market forces should be left to impose the conditions. That is fair; you don't like my work, then don't upvote me; that happens often enough, I'll realise I am wasting my time and move on, without anyone having to abuse me or harm my sense of dignity.
The moment it is used for personal users to impose an opinion, then I consider that act as becoming, itself, criminal behaviour and demeans what Steemit was meant to become.
Hello, @arthur.grafo,
I'm responding only briefly, as I don't think you meant to address your reply to me, but I'm the one it got directed to...
FYI, Steemit users do not pay one another. They have an influence on a reward pool, which is not the same thing. Some of the details of how that works are in the Steemit White Paper.
You may wish to re-post your reply under the main article, or under @onthewayout's remarks, as he is the one who mentioned "game theory?"
Thanks, I was not really addressing anyone in particular, just trying to contribute to the discussion.
As for the reward pool; you are right, I was trying to make my point by exaggerating the amount. A question: Does my position as a steemit member provide me, as a benefit, wih the right to a tiny share of the pool, for me to dispose of as I wish? Does that not, in a sense, mean that those few cents are mine, so that I can benefit by allocating them to someone? (my benefit might be that the post earns enough for me to get a fraction of a cent, or my benefit could be in the social sphere, my upvoting indicating friendliness and a wish to reward that person?
By someone taking the money, they are affecting what I could earn, plus I no longer have the satisfaction of feeling I did a good deed (if I have none left, then I really can't).
It may sound like I'm splitting hairs and making points that are not of high value (money-wise etc), but questions of right and wrong are meant to be independant of such considerations.
Anyway, whatever I say, I know I cannot make a difference, but it was nice trying. Thanks for replying to my previous comment.
Hi again,
Thanks for clarifying.
Actually, the Steemit White Paper explicitly states that is not the case. According to the White Paper:
I'm glad you brought this up, as I am still figuring out and learning how this ingenious system actually works.
A down vote does not affect the outcome of your vote. You can still feel good because without your vote, the result would have been even less for whomever you voted for.
At last an explanation I can understand! Thank you.
I know that I intend concentrating on doing what I love, writing and visiting other artists to encourage and even help where I can. But I also know myself. I am passionate about not standing by while someone gets bullied. As a child I had a few very sickly years, with one stretch of nine months in hospital, and I wear glasses (funny, but in those days, kids who wore glasses were far less in number than now), so it also made me good material for bullies to pick on me.
I got bullied to an extreme, once, with three kids holding me down while their leader whipped my back until I was bleeding.
My grandfather sat me down and told me, even if they are much stronger, hit back. Even if they still beat you up, you'll then have the satisfaction of knowing you hit him - at least once.
He did not know what a monster he was creating. I fought back and nobody bullied me again. But my now aroused empathy forced me to help when I see someone being bullied. This does not only apply to childhood. People get bullied at work, by their neighbours, and so on.
I saw a Nigerian who is fairly new at Steemit, all his posts are original. he wrote (I live in Africa, but am of Greek origin) a lovely post about how to grow enough food to feed your family on a tiny piece of land. This is very common in Africa and the swahili word for this kind of farm is 'shamba'.
I was delighted by his effort and upvoted and followed him. He thanked me, but when I returned to his site, I found he had been flagged to death.
What made it worse, was that there was a long list of people in the comments section complaining about him flagging them without reason.
It did not need a genius to work out that someone has managed to 'beat the system' and using his name flagged the others.
Why am I telling you this? Because I see an extremely disturbing trend. The person who did it, according to those who were able to investigate what happened, was someone called jesta. Guess what! He is #1 of the Witnesses, so I was told to forget it, he can't be touched.
Then I had someone called berniesanders attack someone, badly flagging him because he presented an interview he had with the doctor who provided the medical information for the movie VAXX. He justified what he did by saying he will flag anyone to zero who is anti-vaccine!! Again I learnt that he is one of the untouchables. He has a slavish following and one of them threatened to flag me to nothing because I had dared criticise his hero. He has not done so yet...but who knows.
Then, now, the flagging that prompted this post - and again it is someone high up, an untouchable!
This gives me the feeling that something has seriously gone wrong in Steemit, despite the original good intentions. When things like this start to happen, they just get worse. In Greek we say, the fish begins to stink from the head. In South Africa, we say, if our president can steal and cheat, why shouldn't I?
Will there be many Steemians who feel the same way? If yes, how can we stop it before it destroys the community?
If a way is to be found, then it must be dealt with immediately. I'm just sorry (and disturbed) to not find a way available for us to downvote a Witness (the president of the US can be impeached, but not a Witness?)
Oh I agree with that comment wholeheartedly. If it's going to function as a balance to upvotes (which it currently does), then it should be called downvoting. As far as why we really need it, look no further than the actual spam that gets nuked daily. I think it serves a healthy function, but there needs to be some established standards that the community can rally around when someone abuses that function. This is one such case.
I've seen what I consider to be better proposals for dealing with the proliferation of spam... from @mattclarke in particular, as I recall, but there may be others.
I think one of the best would be make commenting a privilege earned by gaining reputation. A true "flag" would then affect reputation only, closing the door on spam.
In any case, it's pretty clear that there's work to be done! ;)
Communities is going to solve a lot of things.
Oooh, I like that idea. Make reputation actually mean something significant besides being an indicator of status.
I think upvotes are called upvotes for a reason and flags are called flags for a reason. They are not the same by design. Upvotes allocate reward and flags are to be used with caution to take rewards away from posts that are abuse. Anytime a flag is used to counter something that is not abuse, I view the act of flagging as abuse itself.
Hi Dave,
I fear that in this instance you are wrong.
The Steemit White Paper itself tells a different story. They are the same, by design. At least they are said to be.
In fact, the word "Flag" is found nowhere within the WhitePaper. Search as you will you'll only find "votes," either up or down.
However, I have heard it said that down votes affect reputation more strongly than up votes. I am having a great deal of difficulty finding accurate documentation about that, but I'll keep trying from time to time.
The word "flag" has a very negative connotation, and perhaps for that reason alone the user interface should be modified to show up and down votes instead.
Thanks for the correction then, it will help me have my facts straight in the future.
I would certainly advocate for this to be the way we view them though.
I wonder if changing the downvote to a flag was indeed a conscious decision and I wonder what's in the code base, not just on the most popular interface.
While I haven't examined the code myself, I have read from several who have that the code treats up and down votes symmetrically and does not mention "flags."
However, my confusion remains as far as the exact way reputation works in the latest fork of the system. I would love to know if that is truly symmetrical or not. Much of the discussion I've seen strongly implies that down-votes have a stronger impact on reputation than up-votes.
I am adding another comment, because I would like to mention that I think that a number of people (after deducting those who are here only for the money) find enjoyment in discovering such a surprising plethora of new talent.
Yes, I enjoy posting and being upvoted, but just as much, I find myself delighted by the discovery of a new to me talent and if I see he or she is young and struggling, Steemit offers me something miraculous: Without having to take out of my small out-of-steemit income money for upvoting, I have the ability to help thanks to the brilliant system devised here.
Downvoting or flagging - it kills that (and without reason for it existing beyond preventing crimes).
I agree. I have met friends here that I value very highly, no matter what becomes of Steemit. I have also had some very enjoyable and educational reading.