NO there isn't. But what you have to understand is that most posters, they post something non useful and they don't make any money and its no harm no foul. When youre making 20K a pop, if youre just posting the same bull we've seen 100 times before from promoted bloggers (see my point above) then even though it ought to be allowed, it shouldnt be compensated, at least not as much as it most likely would have been.
The problem with the way youre looking at is that youre coming in with the perception that earning a ton of money (or any money at all) on a post ought to be a given. For the overwhelming majority of posters here, it is not.
No, I think you have it wrong. The market determines what is useful. The market determined. Through flag abuse the markets decision was reversed.
I agree with you the Jeff is pushing the money making aspect a bit too much. It is not the money the creates the value around there is the the synergy, and helpful comradery that creates this value. That said. The FREE MARKET spoke, and liked it. And that should have been the end of it.
Jeff, try to take some time an look into the community and the general philosophy a bit more. The Money is not what makes this place valuable. It is only the result of the value we create. The value lays in how the community is set up to best relate and help each other. That said, I am sorry that some people have sought to reverse your rewards.
youre certainly entitled to your opinion. I think downvotes are just as much a part of the market as upvotes. You provide no evidence to back the notion that BS's use of a flag was abuse. There is nothing in the tos or anywhere else that backs up this belief.
The entirety of your point seems to be that people should be entitled to their vote, as long as they use it the same way you do. I disagree.
Most of the voting shares cast for TDV came from outside the free market, just like Bernies and other whale votes opposed to basically running steemit entirely to give tens of thousands of dollars to TDV and his friends.
@sigmajin, for some reason I am unable to replay directly to your post (bug?), so I am replying here:
I am afraid your conclusion of the analysis of my post is incorrect. It seems we have mis-aligning view-points due to the fact that you seem to believe that the system uses up- voting and down-voting to achieve consensus, while I believe that the system uses up- voting , and non-voting to achieve consensus, while flagging is only used to denote violations. I have many reasons to have come to this conclusion, but I will just provide here a structural fact that to me makes it obvious. The fact is there is no down-vote arrow.
I am sure we would agree, that if we were building a similar platform which make use of up and down voting, the most logical thing would be to place the "down-vote" right next to the "up-vote" and in a similar representation. This is not the case here the flag (down-vote) is in the far upper right of the screen, having no relationship to the up-vote arrow neither in appearance, function or presentation. This tells me this is a different unrelated tool, and not a voting mechanism.
So, therefore when I take issue with what I see as excessive flagging for no clear reason. I am not taking issue with others dislike of the post (or the effect of the post), I am taking issue with the use of an in appropriate tool used my some to express personal disfavor. Again, to me, the system is build for personal disfavor to be expressed by non-voting, while violations are to be expressed my flagging.
With all that said, we may never have hope of agreeing on this until we get some clearer guidance form the creators about with the true structure and intention of the platform as it relates to the dynamics in question.
Enjoyed our vigorous discussion.