I see Steemit as a lottery or a roulette wheel for writers. You makes your post and you takes your chances. When you are get an upvote from a whale you are a happy camper. When you get a flag you are not. But it's all part of the game. You can't rail against the system when you have a bad spin.
This misses part of the issue with Transisto's reasoning, which I voiced. It's not a matter of how people feel about it without considering all the issues. It's a matter of downvoting to effect resource allocation effectively diminishes or removes altogether the stake of other users in voting up material. There is plenty of material that all of us agree doesn't deserve rewards. However, if a piece doesn't fall into that category, who are you or anyone else to tell me that I voted incorrectly?
No, there isn't. The world is a vaster place than our minds can encompass, and even spam is considered, by someone, worthy of an upvote.
Otherwise, no one would post it.
Overall, however, you are right. No one, no matter how high their rep, or how fat their wallet, has a right to tell anyone else what to value, or whether to upvote it.
Either Steemit eventually conforms to this factual reality, or it gets replaced by platform(s) that do.
Invest accordingly. The real world cometh.
You're right. That sentence should read "that can reasonably considered unworthy of reward of any kind."
Hi, @roomerkind! I was just thinking about you. Yeah, I think Andrei has a valid point here--and it would be great if Steemit could become less of a crap shoot and more of entity that will keep Perihelion on its toes. :-)
Whereas the chance of a game often depends upon the skill of the player.
I see Steemit more of a game of skill than of chance and if you practice and get really good at your game you should be able to avoid such obstacles as flags.
Unless the ref is biased of course.