I Like to Preach About Flagging Sometimes..
In this case, I'm going to go one step further and invite you to practice.
Flags are our tool to fight abuse and bad actors.
This profile is using other people's pictures and stories and voting it up with bots.
We do not have to flag this post to zero, just a few more flags to ensure the post is not profitable will be enough.
A reminder: Steem simulates the Wisdom of the Crowd.
20 people see your post, 10 view it and like it, they upvote it, 5 ignore it and 5 flag it... At the end of the week you get to pocket whatever is left over...
Simple Explanation of how the reward system works:
Each day the Steem Blockchain creates new Steem
That Steem is distributed via our votes
The more stake you hold the more your votes are worth
When you post (or comment) the community has 3 options
- upvote
- downvote/flag
- no action
A post is active for 7 days. When that week is over you get to claim whatever the balance is.
Flags can be overdone, but if more people used them we would have way less garbage.
If you feel the need to remind me that flagging does pay, go ahead, but I happen to think that is one of the dumbest and most immature lines I've I've ever heard. it is just a cost of doing business.
Restaurants don't get paid to clean, they clean because no one wants to eat in a dirty restaurant.
@whatsup,
This is me flagging lol :D So I didn't :D
Cheers~
I just left this comment at @lukestoke's post, but I'll just copypaste it here since it's the same topic:
Upvotes and downvotes are tools to allocate stake. They are the same action, just opposite of each other.
This is the way I've tried to explain it in the past:
If a user feels a post is under-rewarded, he will upvote.
If a user feels a post is over-rewarded, he will downvote.
There's nothing more to it than that. It's a huge double standard that people feel people have the "right" to upvote their content with their full stake, allocating them STEEM, but somehow lack the right to use that same stake to allocate STEEM away to other users.
There have been several members who have enjoyed the regular - sometimes automatic - support of heavy-stake users for every post. They've said nothing. But as soon as another big user has noticed this, and countered with a downvote, all of a sudden it's a huge problem that one user has this much power of the post payouts.
But one user upvoting the posts to big payouts was never a problem. Go figure.
That's the whole point of STEEM power: a say in that particular portion of the reward pool.
Payouts are not your money until the voting window closes. I think this is the biggest hangup a lot of people have.
They are potential payouts, subject to community consensus.
I've tried my damnest to say this so many times. In so many ways.
Agreed. I also saw luke's post and agreed with it as well!
"nods."
Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Maybe this should be a @whatsup series! I'll help flag abusers any day.
'She' didnt do 'herself' any favours by that post. Many of us saw it and flagged it yesterday including myself.
I say 'she' as its likely not someone who looks anyone like the free-to-use image portrayed.
I'm surprised the account hasnt been destroyed yet by @steemcleaners or @spaminator. I think its coming.
maria99 Funds was transferred thru by @blocktrades
It can comes from anywhere ... legally or from Phished Accounts.
This Account @maria99 Funds are from Hacked Funds I believe.
No one in this Platform do have so much Fund unless they are funded by a whale.
The mention Account , should be Destroy!
Will a person know if someone has flagged his/her post, because my problem with downvotes was people often get back to take revenge which obviously wouldn't be in anyone's interest.
Haha, I also just read and commented on @lukestokes's article, so thanks to you as well for bringing this to all our attention. Curation consists of liking and disliking stuff, and it seemingly works well on Amazon, Quora, Reddit etc. but not on Steem. Funny to have your mind blown :-)
Posted using Partiko Android
I think you meant to say that flagging doesn't pay...
Maybe the whole concept of upvoting is wrong. There should be only downvoting. He who gets the least downvotes gets the most. It would eliminate a lot of crap that's being posted.
That's kind of a genius idea to be honest
Interesting... Inflation gets distributed to those without flags. :)
Flagging does pay? Please, tell me more @whatsup preferably in less ambiguous terms. I'm not sure what you are talking about but think I might have an idea. Is you dispute against anyone trying to incentivize flags?
Do you think the upvote / downvote system is so balanced that such a thing is extraneous? If so, can point me to any flag that you got curation rewards from? I think that is a part of the problem. The inherent imbalance in the system where people must forego personal profit to keep things clear.
If you are one to flag, you care about the bigger picture but you know as well as I that the protocol is indifferent to this but should it pay like positive curation? Why shouldn't it? If everybody thinks only a handful of people should be cleaning the metephorical tables, they got it wrong. It's a a shared responsibility.
I don't care if it holds curation. I'm not looking for fast pennies, I want Steem to hold value.
If you really care about that, think you need to reevaluate your inclination towards lone wolf flagging.
Stray flags here and there are demonstrably less likely to curb behavior and that should be the goal with any abuser. It's the analogous difference between pulling the weed at the root or not.
Focused and coordinated flagging team work is much more effective. Also, I would not underestimate the value of the community providing incentives for flagging in a manner that is more effective. Some people just don't understand or really care enough about long term sustainability. This kind may need a little nudge.
Should we have to pay people to do the right thing? Of course not but this is the reality we have been dealt so best we work with the cards we have.