hi @pharesim, thanks for expanding on that, that clarifies it all. I did not know that the original purpose of flagging was actually to balance the reward.

I actually read your reply earlier but I sat on it to let it sink in and try to understand and see things this way for obviously - I must be missing something or not seeing things the way others do and clearly, for I don't really know many things. It's not an excuse it's purely ignorance (shys).

I understand the good intent you mentioned and I now understand more than before. Obviously, I've also been sucked in to that circle and since there were only a few of those, personally speaking, I thought I should be grateful specially to those who do not just cast their votes on my posts but read and leave comments on them. For that same reason, I felt obliged and that it is but righteous to return the ups I got (but of course, again this is my personal view on things plus I really am not a fan of making someone feel bad no matter how annoying they could be), unconscious of the fact that you just mentioned that I was actually also ensuring rewards for myself this way (yes, I took a peek on this comment thread haha!).

Having written that and having seen the consistency that some of those who can be considered patrons(whom some of the people here tagged as members of a circle) to my posts which is seemingly sucked into that "circle jerking" and still some of them are really curating and even constantly helping newbies, too, Imho, it's also possible that they have this mentality but I do have the benefit of the doubt that some may be already committing abuse whether consciously or unconsciously. Whether they are indeed abusing the system or not, I think they're old enough to be responsible for themselves.

Understanding that the flag is used to balance rewards to ensure that others get them, too, more so - to enable great contents to get to trending I found myself asking a few questions and I hope you don't mind if I ask away.

1> Since some are already regulating the said "circle jerks" why don't we just put it out blatantly that circle jerking is not allowed? ( although this would sound so imposing) Perhaps, then it would be clear that it's not allowed otherwise - it is allowed and if it's allowed then it's inevitable for others to see and find that we're having a double standard on things when they're getting heavily flagged cause some flags seem to just show that they don't really like the post but other than that it has no effect on the rewards - that one is quite easy to accept.

2> If we want to balance the reward this way to get the great contents to trending, is it also possible to just cast an up to those "considerably great contents" than spend one's voting power on flagging? ... although, I admit that no matter how I think about it, I guess, it may sound that I still don't get this -

How can a flag give the reward it took from the post it flagged to a considerably great post? How does that work? Does the reward go back to the reward pool?

I really can't imagine because I really don't know how it works. I have to admit that I didn't read much on this (shy).

If it does go back to the reward pool, how is it then ensured that it would be given to a considerably great posts?

Is it really inevitable to use the flag to get to do this and would flagging really help make us attractive to the masses? Is it not possible to solve things purely positively - without using the flag. Can't we just cast our votes to those who really make great contents? After all, it's one of the goals behind it.

Imho that flag really has a negative appeal on it, the name alone, more so if it takes out rewards( therefore the drama and the vendetta plague). Haven't we used the flag a long time ago? Did it really work? Afaik, the circle jerks existed from the start, it's one cancer in the society even IRL and some people must have seen that and mimicked what they're doing. If it's not working would it ever? Is it really mending things or actually causing a bigger damage?

I just wonder if it so happens that the considerably great contents really get to trending then perhaps the circle jerks would then be more exposed/isolated, surely, conniving or not some of those also have morals and shame they would stop at least if they have a conscience and follow by example - curate and cast their votes on considerably great posts.

3> Lastly, what defines a considerably great post? Are we sticking to - "it gives value"?

If the very goal was to make the considerably great post get to trending from the start - why were bid bots allowed - specially those that don't cast ups like OCD does - so far I really like how OCD casts its vote.

If I may say this - what I saw worked till apparently it was said to have been abused was "the ned votes" back then there was a list of authors who got ned's up till it was said to have been abused. That time, I remember that it motivated the recipients to really fashion interesting and value filled posts. I also saw that it actually birthed to many more recipients and stopped when it was abused by idkwho. Imho that one really worked and had a positive approached unfortunately, I don't know exactly what went wrong whether it was misused by some people? Perhaps, the tendency to abuse things really should be watched so it won't spoil the good things still existing here.

Having mentioned it, I also think that if we all support only what seem to be great posts - specially that it seems that they should be perfectly written - grammar and spelling wise aside from having value - Imho, it would create another imbalance on the system - it would made it look like mediocre (if I may use that) posts could possibly just be ignored (plus I abhor the idea of boosting narcissism to some who can really pull off a great post but this one is just my personal taste).

It seemed that I already wrote you a book and am beginning to feel like am blabbing but if I don't ask I would never get a better understanding so thanks in advance!