It's time to outline the next step in the process to curb @nextgencrypto / @berniesanders toxicitiy for Steemit: An insitutionalized approach to counter illegitimate flagging.

So far, things look good. I successfully managed to damage a part of his business activities on Steemit, which he used to fund his irrational flagging excesses. It looks like I really got into his head by doing that and got him nervous about it. His latest comments against me also indicate that he slowly starts stepping back from attacking me (he doesn't automatically flag all my content anymore).

In a previous post, I have outlined the bigger implications for the Steem blockchain, in which I showed that it is not (just) a matter of personal animosity, but that his activities harm the future success of Steem and the upcoming SMT project as a whole.

I am convinced that - given his projected power on the platform - if he gets a free pass in further undermining the trust among users and for potential investors, Steem and SMT will be history before it really started.

Of course, not all of his flagging is unreasonable and his ongoing feud with @haejin does create a lot of traffic, which means, it has not necessarily a negative impact on the platform. Even @ned stated his approval in a comment about the two.

And after all, flagging is meant to be a regulative feature. With the downvote feature, you can successfully act against spam, scamming attempts or - as explicitly stated in the Whitepaper - lower the payout for content if you think the post doesn't deserve it. Implicitly derived from this, you can even make the statement that it is justified to flag a user because you don't like him. An interpretation, @berniesanders is a specialist in applying.

But despite these implications, there is nonetheless a major problem that I see in this configuration of rules and I would like to use this article to address the matter and offer a workable solution.

When a whale gets flagged by a whale he can fight back, but if a minnow gets flagged by a whale - what options does he have?

Arguably, I have shown how it is done with #curbyourbernie: You attack them where it hurts them more than you. The attack is not be based on (inexistent) flagging power, but has the goal to destroy the confidence of customers into their business activities on Steemit.

The downside of this approach so far is that my account suffered losses in reputation due to the constant flagging. This on both levels, the reputation by the system as well as socially. To that comes my content, which has been only about #curbyourbernie lately and was consistently flagged into the negative zone. This resulted in a limited visibility and virtually zero payouts since about two weeks. I estimate the loss to about 2$ per day - not much for a whale, but about 3% of my total SP.

For these reasons - and this is not over yet - my approach can only be one of the last resort. What it really needs is an institutionalized way of countering illegitimate flagging and censorship as @berniesanders is engaged in on a regular base (and in the future perhaps also others). And for that, we need whales.

I'm talking to you: @themarkymark, @suggeelson, @yabapmatt, @inertia and @fyrstikken

My sort-of-sceptic opinion about @themarkymark is known and I remember one positive encounter with @suggeelson. He helped me once to get off the block list for bots (where bernie put me on back then and recently he added me again; but this time I don't care anymore). So far unknown to me are @yabapmatt, @inertia and @fyrstikken. No idea who they are.

Either way, the entire matter is one of interest and not sympathy. I am convinced, all of them can play a constructive role in this process.

These five users made it on my list, because they are are major players in the bot business and at the same time, there is no flagging going on against them by @berniesanders (as it is the case with @jerrybanfield). This strongly suggests, they don't have a horse in the race.

What I should also add is that I am not a big fan of the upvote bot busines in general, but I am well aware that they are there and as things are, they are not going anywhere. I accept them as fact of Steemit-life.

In total, these five users run at least half a dozen of upvote bots with at least 3 Million SP. I didn't count it, but it's probably even more. The important information here is that they are big, they are powerful and they are heavily invested in the Steem blockchain.

That makes them perfect candidates to become part of a regulative mechanism to curb @berniesanders hazardous activities. As I have outlined in my post about the investors perspective, he is a direct threat to the further success of the Steem blockchain and that makes him a threat for their fortune the same way as he is a threat to my account (and everyone elses!). With him going on like right now, we might lose what little or much we have built on Steemit.

The bottom line is, for the whales this is a matter of their own interest.

What the Steemit community needs you to provide with is: A flagging protection umbrella against illegitimate downvotes!

This umbrealla does not necessarily need an own account, it is more of a public statement not too different than what I did with my warnings against users for using certain bots when I killed bernies share of @randowhale.

Of course, as I needed firepower in the background (and the threat of using it), this public statement must include the same. But this not implicitly with users hiding in anonymity until it happens, but openly and explicitly.

@berniesanders and all other whales who engage in illegitimate flagging must exactly know what they are dealing with. A strategic nuke is only worth a strategic nuke, when potential enemies know everything about its destructiveness. That's why the flagging protection umbrella (FPU) must include the amount of SP ready to be used and the names of those who provide it.

In addition to names+SP, we also need a code of conduct, when to engage in protecting minnows, which in return defines cases in which minnows can ask for help by the FPU.

At first, the different categories for downvotes:

1. spamming
2. scamming attempts
3. stolen content (text, images, videos)
4. haejin-related (the special case for @berniesanders)
5. censorship

While the first three categories are self-explanatory, the other two are the relevant ones for the FPU. The legitimate part of @haejin related downvotes are flags for his posts and comments to his posts, but not other content by commentators of the posts by @haejin. This is a very important distinction, because it happened several times in the past that @berniesanders attacked commentators in unrelated posts and even attacked bystanders as the examples of @sirlunchthehost and @allasyummyfood clearly show. This must not be allowed!

The fifth category is censorship and I decided to subsumize "not liking someones content" and "not liking that user" in this category, because we are talking about a whale attacking a minnow. There is no such thing as equal chances involved.

Even someone like @allasyummyfood with >20k SP has no chance when getting hit by a rage attack of someone who has ~1 Million SP on his accounts. There is simply no balance of power possible in these cases. For whales against minnows, the downvote reason of "dislike" cannot realistically be considered. That's why here too the FPU has to apply.

In total, we have two cases out of five being relevant for the FPU.

This is what the whales must do in potential FPU cases

1. They must check if it applies. Here, ideal is enforcing a self-categorization by flaggers. Users should always have to state the reason why they downvoted a specific content. This makes it simpler to decide if the flagging is legitimate or not.
2. The flagger must have a chance to justify his downvote. Sometimes, there are two sides to one story.
3. If the FPU still applies, the participants of the FPU must undo the downvote with an upvote of the same size. A higher upvote is not necessary.
4. Then the FPU participants send out a warning to the flagger in which they threaten to flag the user in case another illegitimate flag occurs. (Plus, in case no reason has been given as described in 1.)
5. In case of further illegitimate downvotes, the FPU will attack the financial base of the user in an escalating manner:
   • If the user runs bots, the customers will be driven away (while offering alternatives!).
   • Self-upvotes by the user will be flagged.
   • All posts made by the user will be flagged to zero.
   • Existing SP leases given out by the user will be quit and other leasing partners will be forced to quit their leases (also while offering alternatives!).
   • Other business activities on Steemit will be targeted.
   • If given, the witness status of the user will be attacked.

If action is necessary, it must begin with the least damaging method. And before attacks happen, it is important to send out a clear warning with what will happen next. The perpetrator must have a chance to get out of the situation without having to fear the loss of his financial base.

There is no need for overreactions and there is no need for revenge. This is a proposal for an institutionalized approach to limit damages to the community of Steemit and the Steem blockchain as a whole. Going too far would only cause more damage!

It is important to keep this in mind: We are all in here for the long game. Whales and minnows.

What I will do next to put this step into motion

1. I will send this article to the mentioned whales and see how they react.
2. In case they react negatively or not at all, I will start collecting information about their bot business.
3. Their biggest customers will then receive a message in which I threaten to flag them if they go on using the bots owned by these whales and explain the reason for the threat plus offering alternatives.
4. At the same time, I will rally the flagging power that I already had in place for my campaign against @randowhale and perhaps I can find additional allies.
5. Depending on the reactions by the bot owners, the damage to their upvote businesses after the warning and if the customers still buy there, I will make sure their customers content will be flagged.

That should get me their attention..

Besides this, I will go on collecting information about the flagging behaviour of @berniesanders and I will set up my first @doodlebot, which will follow notorious flagging accounts. The bot will add a comment to every content that gets flagged by them. In this comment I will invite the flagged users to take part in this process.

The more we are, the better we can force the necessary changes to be put into practice. To protect each other and to protect Steemit and the Steem blockchain as a whole.

What do you think about this? Is setting up the FPU an approach that makes sense, is it realistic and will it be successful? Who else besides the mentioned five whales should be engaging in this FPU? Let me know in the comments!

You will find all my posts in this matter under the tag #curbyourbernie