Yes, I see your point and you may be right.
But you did over-simplify the situation with your examples.
Under normal circumstances I would report a shoplifter to the store owners ...
but will I still report the shoplifter if I know that it means that I have to pay for 20% of what he stole, and I also know that it means another shopper will not be able to receive that full amount of groceries unless I keep my mouth shut?
... that is a much more complicated question and answer ...
RE: Someone Should Pay Me To Flag... Bad Advice and Unpopular Opinions
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Someone Should Pay Me To Flag... Bad Advice and Unpopular Opinions
Exactly. Flagging abuse is an altruistic act. There is no question about it. We can't rely on mostly selfish actors such as most of us to reliably bear the cost of keeping abuse in check while others enjoy the fruits of that activity while paying none of the cost.
Now, if downvotes could earn you as much as upvotes, the abuse potential could be mitigated by creating a rule under which flagging would require a reasonably wide consensus to be effective so as to prevent some people with a large stake from abusing their flagging power. But what about alts and bot armies? It all comes down to Oracles if one wants to go down that route. But how many would want what is effectively KYC on Steem?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, ^THIS^ Even if I were to consider flagging an important aspect of this platform, this 'domino effect' would stop me.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
All businesses have that same challenge.
If we pay 2 people to clean, we can't pay someone to cook more food. It's still just a cost of doing business.
If I pay for a fence to protect my chickens that is chickens I can't buy...
That's it. It's a cost, if you upgrade the fence, while you will have to do some repairs from time to time, you have handled a big part of the problem. In the future you will be able to produce more eggs.
What if each user considered 5% of their voting power part of paying for a clean house. :)
I'm not arguing as much as trying to offer another way to view it.
How much more would those people you are supporting get if we all weren't supporting the abuse.
The abuse impacts, me and you and those people you are helping as well. :) Just sharing some thoughts
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
STEEM could be worth more (and the big whales hodling it could be richer) had people flagged certain abusers more in the past, creating a more likeable environment and culture.
Not to mention that flagging certain abusers would have prevented so much STEEM being allocated to them to dump on the markets, creating immense selling pressure.
Flagging is a selfish act, not altruistic. It's protecting your investment.
How is this such a hard concept for people to fucking grasp?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Because it is long-term, cooperative thinking.
It's too late now anyway.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
People don't know what long-term investment is.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit