RE: Can we have downvotes and at the same time prevent 'flag wars'?
Ok the first question I have if steemit can handle all complaint about flags or who should do this ?
The idea from @glory7 is fine but the question is what if I save me one time a text and copy/paste them every time I flag something ? So in the end it would be also necessary in this case to analyse this reasons.
My idea would be that one flag is no flag, means if only one person (not account) add a flag this should not count. Their should be at least two persons who flag the content.
I am aware that this is not so easy cause many persons have multiple accounts and so steemit should calculate them together, but I think it should be possible.
As the blockchain saves all steemit should know when a new account is claimed at the blockchain what account has paied the ressource credits for this and add this new account for the purpose of flagging to this account. Means, that all accounts who was created with ressource credits belong for flag purpuse to the account who paied the ressource credits.
Not Steemit, Inc. had to handle these complaints but user-elected committees created for exactly that purpose. Please read my post! :)
The idea of @glory7 might prevent automated mass flagging. It could be discussed and improved further, for instance by adding the necessity to solve CAPTCHAs before giving a flag.
The idea is not bad but how could you know if two accounts represent two different persons? :)
I own quite some accounts, and most of them weren't created by using my own resource credits (actually most of them existed already before resource credits came into play at all).
"The idea is not bad but how could you know if two accounts represent two different persons? :)"
OK at the longterm you could analyse with KI, means if always (or often) accounts add together flags KI could bring them together and count them as one person.
But it would not work immediately and help not in the situation, just in longterm.
Another possible way would be to offer (free choice of every user) the possibilty to do ident check for accounts and add the rule that only accounts with checked identity can add flags. All other accounts can just exist and do all normally but would not be able to add flags. Or to change this a little bit and tell that they can also create flags, but it's necessary that two accounts with checked identity add a flag and only in this case let all flags count.
The problem with your last idea is that many blockchain users use crypto currencies and blockchain among others because of the possibility to stay anonymous/pseudonymous.
One of the main ideas in the crypto space is to guarantee that everybody can state his opinion without the fear to be suppressed by individuals (who for example hate homosexuals), groups of people (who for example don't tolerate different religions) or governments.
That's why many crypto users for instance dislike Voice.
Ok but I don't see any problem in this cause as you can have multiple accounts you can do identity check only for one account and can post critical content with another account and nobody must know that both accounts belong to you.
If you don't like this idea than I think it should be ok if you don't have the possibility to flag content.
In my opinion if you want flag content you must not be able to do this anonymous.
I think that the experience shows that (a lot of) people flag anonymous content cause of their possible interest and not cause this content is against law or against somebody. They even have a problem with one post of the user (maybe correct) but flag not only this one post but flag than every post of this user, although the other nine (from f.e. ten post) are quite ok - or even they write a bot who directly flag every content a specific user post new. Should it really be ok to do something like this anonymous ?
Then, where to put your SP?
To the identifed account? Then you cannot earn money with critical articles written with your small, unidentified accounts (people tend to follow big accounts).
To the anonymous accounts? Then the flags of your identified accounts wouldn't have much effect. However, if your anonymous accounts followed the flags of your identified accounts, then it would be obviuos that all accounts belong together.
To be honest, I consider my suggestion of elected committees as way superior compared to the implementation of identity checks on STEEM. :)
"To be honest, I consider my suggestion of elected committees as way superior compared to the implementation of identity checks on STEEM. :)"
OK there will be posts that are clearly objectionable and deserve the down vote. There will also be posts that are not objectionable and then the committee can remove the downvotes. As always in real life there will also be posts where it is a matter of judgment whether they already "qualify" for a down vote or not. In such a case, what if this committee may not agree and what options will I as a user have to defend myself against a decision by this committee? Is the committee almighty as the King of England used to be or will there be a legal process?
Don't plagiarise, don't spam with ten minimal posts per day, don't put child pornography online ... :)
If you read my article you know that I am against to flag dog posts just because I like cats. :)
I suggest the committee to be elected and reconfirmed regularly by the community. It would have quite an amount of STEEM power, but of course if many users upvoted a post they still could outvote the committee.
Anyway, I don't think it to be useful to discuss too many details as long as nobody is in favour of my idea ...
"Don't plagiarise, don't spam with ten minimal posts per day, don't put child pornography online ... :)"
Not completely agree.
To post something in the own blog is for me not spaming cause everybody is free to read my blog or let it be. Spaming is for me to put spam-contest in blog of other users.
Second I think that not only child pornography should not be put at steemit - I think that also "normal" pornography should have no place at this plattform.