Yeah, the guys that have controversial posts are likely to get opinion flagged more, but also keep in mind that every upvote becomes a lot more powerful and this place is filled with unintended consequences. The votes you'll have in your community will be worth more. It'll balance out. Equilibrium is a very strong universal force.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What if you had some sort of 'downvote guidelines'? Those would be tied to a pool of SP delegated to a bot account. The bot could be governed by a jury system (a vote on dpoll maybe). If you invoke a jury(whitelisted maybe) and win, you get the downvotes erased plus a certain percentage. If your invocation is BS and the downvote is deserved, the bot downvotes you even more for wasting people's time. Each juror can get a small upvote from the bot on their vote submission. Jurors can voted in or out based upon their adherence to the downvote guidelines. In this you have a community driven system that could overcome abuse or exploits. To seed the pool, the bot could also be a witness vote proxy that tracked how much witnesses delegated to it. People supporting the jury system can let the bot vote on their behalf and then witnesses would be forced to delegate more SP in order to compete for votes. This would also have the side effect of making the top witness have the biggest SP investment in the platform. Perhaps there could also be a way to incentivize everyone else to delegate to it as well.
@steemflagrewards?
I think it will balance out if there was a sort of witness council where actual mods could be appointed who have the downvote power. And the mods have to be rotated out every so often with other people.
Something like that would be a lot better. On reddit for example having mods who are always in charge leads to tyranny and censorship, as shown by /r/politics and /r/bitcon and /r/news and /r/worldnews. If those mods were rotated out or voted out it would be a lot better.
I would be willing to vote for mods who have the free downvotes, same as how we vote for witnesses.
One of the biggest issues with virtue signaling is that its usually a facade to hide the truth. Forcing people to put their money where their mouth is evaporates most virtue signalers instantly. In an environment where something like steem has mass adoption then opinion flagging will not be nearly as high as you might think.
I really doubt that, outside of a few invincible whales, we will see about the same levels of opinion flagging we see now.