I think most, if not all, problems with Steemit could be cured with:

1. Better distribution.
2. Normalizing flagging/downvotes.

Seriously, it's these two things. Everything else is micromanaging, and sometimes even entirely pointless.

I'm enjoying the price crash immensely because I'm looking to buy back in once we find the floor. And you should, too. This helps with problem #1, which is distribution.

Let me get this straight:

If you are unhappy with aspects of Steemit, now is your chance to buy influence.

But using that influence for flagging can still be pretty damn finicky. It just shouldn't be.

Downvotes are just upvotes in reverse.

Downvoting someone is you using your stake - just like upvoting is. We are not required to explain our upvotes, so why should we be required to explain our flags?

The general consensus seems to be that if you like a post, you upvote it, and if you dislike a post, you ignore it.

But why is this?

If liking a post means you upvote it, downvoting it for disliking it makes all the sense in the world. Sure, you can still ignore a post, or do whatever the fuck it is that you want to do - but my point is that we should move towards normalizing the flag.

If you flag someone, you don't owe him or her any explanation.

And yes, I've been flagged before. I've been flagged by heavy duty stakeholders with no explanation. Never once did I throw a hissy fit over it.

I was bummed for a second and moved on with my life. Realizing it's the stakeholders' right to flag me if he or she is so inclined.

Let's talk about the very basics of how this whole place even functions.

Your stake - as in your amount of STEEM power - is your claim to the reward pool. It dictates how much of the pool you control.

Whenever you upvote or downvote, you are using your own stake.

Again, imagine if we were required to always give a detailed analysis every time we upvote someone - just like we're asked to do when we give out a flag.

Virtually all upvotes and downvotes come down to the same basic thing:

Disagreement on rewards.

I upvote something because I feel that it is undervalued;
I downvote something because I feel that it is overvalued.

I take a stand with the amount of stake I own at that given moment and control the portion of the reward pool that my stake allows for me to control at that point in time.

Also, keep in mind that the money your post has earned prior to the payout happening is not your money. The payout hasn't happened yet, and until it does, the payout is always up for debate.

That's the whole damn point of this fucking place here.

It is the community consensus after the 7 day period that determines the final payout.

When you post something, you post it out there for the community to judge.

If a stakeholder or two, or even three, decide that your particular post should be earning less, they will downvote. If a stakeholder or two, or even three, decide that your particular post should be earning more, they will upvote.

That's how this works.

Now, I do think that it's unfortunate that the chain doesn't reward users for flagging in any way since I do feel that flagging is a much more important action in general than the upvote.

Also, if all this hatred for flags stems from the fact that flags can be abused, upvotes can be abused to all hell - and are, every day.

Autovotes, circle jerks, scratch my back, I'll scratch yours deals...

Do you really think the Golden Boys here got popular by producing "good" content? Their "content" was just so damn good, they got all that automated support on pure merit?

Of course not. There were deals made and cocks sucked in chats, in person, whatever.

And this led to upvote abuse.

Something that can be countered with the damn downvotes, people.