Steemit Solutions NOW!
Greetings Steemers & Steemians!
:-D
Alrighty then! Let’s cut through the treacle and light this candle!
No pictures - no fluff - just pure unadulterated solution!
...brought to you by a New Paradigm. ;-)
If an explanation is required, please see @gardenofeden 's article about how it's no big deal, but it IS a big deal - also, @stellabelle wrote an article that is making me weigh the benefits and truly think about where I want to spend my time and whom I want to spend my time with...
As a short background, I’ve wanted to write other articles on Steemit for awhile (since my introduction), however… something has been gnawing at my conscience:
It is way too easy to cut into potential earnings and outright censor people.
Quickfix solution?
Flagging and Downvoting REQUIRES commenting and explanation.
This way, the user MUST explain WHY they downvoted/flagged… and if the reason is insufficient (see below), the flag is to be removed quickly and the user who flagged NEEDS to lose Steem for wasting everyone’s time and energy over issues that are strictly personal.
In ALL of my years on message boards (or related forums), I’ve ONLY seen flagging used as a means against terms of service violations and for outright belligerent behavior.
If someone is plagiarizing material YOU created and isn’t even nodding in your direction? Flag it! Comment on WHY and move on your way!
If someone has the same idea as YOU and they are writing their own articles on it? Do not flag it! But why not comment to see if maybe a possible cooperative is in order? Or at the very least plug your own idea in there so readers can see the difference?
HOWEVER...
Disagreement or even outright resentment against someone or what someone is presenting should NOT be grounds for flagging or downvoting!
Period.
For example: I love cats, and dogs, and cute little animals… But you will never see me upvote OR flag an article of adorable animal pictures BECAUSE it is against what I believe Steemit should be about and so I place my energy and upvotes elsewhere…
IF I was to take it personally, and get all butt hurt about the amount of Steem being garnered by what I consider Facebook material… And I FLAGGED IT?? Or DOWNVOTED IT in order to say “Ha! Take that crazy cat lady!” - It would be compromising my values, I would be acting dishonorably, and I am very directly creating an environment and community of pettiness and antagonism.
Truly, the ONLY thing we can do as a community is to a) speak up, offer our voice, and make a stand for what we know is honorable, b) hold users accountable in the best and most efficient way possible, and c) use the Golden Rule - the one that offers, “Give unto others as one would give unto oneself.” ---And if that means DISAGREEMENT??? Simply comment on it - or ignore it completely!!
To do otherwise is to open up yourself and the entire community to flagging and downvote wars where nobody wins and Steemit loses.
SO… In summary:
(1) Downvoting / Flagging REQUIRES an explanatory comment to be left.
(2) Insufficient reason (i.e. personal issues and disagreements that have nothing to do with legalities and terms of service) of flagging/downvote ends in speedy removal of flagging and a loss of Steem for the offending party.
Please feel free to comment, disagree, agree, and share with others!
Also feel free to use, amend, and make this idea your own!
Another thing would be creating a cap for the weight of a curator.
Would you be willing to explain further? Simply for the sake of discussion? :-)
I believe the main problem with the reward system is how much "whale" votes count. If there was a cap, it would be more democratic for the average user to have some real impact on the platform.
I very much agree on that level... but it still doesn't address the issue at hand (IMHO).
Even if a cap is introduced, what if one is to put out articles about gay rights, or religion, or holistic lifestyles? Should those articles be DEVALUED simply because one disagrees with them??
I know it wasn't a high earner for you (LOL - I'm there now with this post!), but what if your Ode to Coffee HAD been? And me, disliking coffee (in this example), I downvote or flag your article because I don't want to drink coffee and so, by extension, I don't want ANYONE to drink coffee, and in the process curb your earnings or even prevent people from seeing your article at all...
The question I ask you is:
Do I have the right to affect you in such an intimate way for such a trivial reason?
"Do I have the right to affect you in such an intimate way for such a trivial reason?"
Well, it all depends, IMO, on how much your opinion affects my overall reach. If one flag obliterates my post, than I fully agree with you.
But, thinking a bit outside the box, maybe flagging should also have a validation system, just to prevent what you mentioned. What do you think about that?
In every message board I've ever participated in, flagging is never immediate action but just that: a flagging for a moderator to take a look at the post to determine if it needs to be censored due to terms of service violation OR if it is just blatant trolling that needs to be kicked to the curb.
Should flagging have a validation system?
IMHO: Absolutely!
...But still! The question I am reaching for here is:
Do YOUR posts deserve to be DEVALUED because people disagree with them?
In your post, you start it off saying:
"Well, it all depends..."
What I'm hearing you say is: even if on a small cent-sual level, you WANT to DEVALUE other people's posts if you disagree with them AND also be open to having OTHERS dislike your post and DEVALUE it in return?
I'm all for flagging - but for it being what it is supposed to be about rather than it taking on the likeness and image of a downvote --- which IMHO strictly shouldn't exist.
IF this is about subjective content, the very act of DEVALUING someone else's viewpoint translates into this becoming a flame war steemit-style... And what I mean by this is: flags for all, lots of petty downvoting, and a bunch of users sitting around feeling like they just wasted precious hours DEVALUING when they could have been CREATING...
...This is what you meant, isn't it?
Or have I misinterpreted your meaning?
"I'm all for flagging - but for it being what it is supposed to be about rather than it taking on the likeness and image of a downvote --- which IMHO strictly shouldn't exist."
I agree with your point, and flagging should be restricted to spam, or unrelated content, or things like that, NEVER about opinion, or so.
That is why a validation system could be of benefit.