Hey everyone!
Flags have started becoming more used as of late, and not just on plagiarism/abuse/etc. I've been observing some of them lately and how others have handled them, in some cases it has left me really disappointed, so I wanted to chime in my thoughts and opinions around them.
There are some bigger users who are using their flags to combat abuse of delegations primarely through self-voting low quality content just to be able to pay for said delegation. I fully agree with those and I will support said users sacrificing their potential curation rewards to better distribute the reward pool to everyone else not involved in the abuse.
Then there are some bigger users who also have a history of fighting all sorts of abuse but they also flag content where they don't agree with the rewards it has received. This is the more controversial one lately even though "disagreement on rewards" is the first reason when placing a flag.
This is what I've noticed happening so far and being the popular route authors receiving flags take.
Big user A flags author B because he believes the rewards on her posts aren't warranted. Often these users write a comment explaining the reason to the flag, some times they may not do so. This might be the first flag author B has ever received, instead of taking a minute to process it, they lash out and go on a venting spree about this so called "unfair" flag. Often attacking user A and disregarding any logic or past history of that user and his flag activity. Either being mad about the amount of $ they lost through the rewards, or having received the flag in the first place which they take offensively. This usually heats up and makes user A want to flag said author even more which becomes more emotional and defeats the purpose of the first flag completely. It spins out of control.
In a perfect world, this would happen instead.
User A flags author B and explains that he doesn't see how the content of the post justifies the rewards it gets. Author B should accept this, after all this user is sacrificing curation rewards (increasing his stake in the currency) for redistributing the reward pool onto the rest of the platform with stake that the user himself has purchased and has the right to do so. Author B should not feel as if he was targeted specifically or take it personally and especially not lash out because of it or feel as if the user is "stealing" rewards from him. After all post payouts are called potential until they are paid out, we even have a timer in place specifically to allow for flags to be cast on posts before they are paid out if some users feel the rewards are too high. Author B should accept the flag and see if he can improve on what he is doing as to not get flagged again in the future, even if chances of the flags reoccurring are low they could either give it a thought or just ignore it and move on doing what they already have been doing in the past. Not bicker and whine about a flag and threaten to leave the platform or call "censorship" or similar stuff I've been hearing in the past.
Here is why I believe these actions go down the way they do.
Authors, specifically those being on autovotes from others, get attached to the rewards and take them for granted. The $ amount next to the upvotes makes it seem even more like they are losing out after receiving a few flags and they take it personally and overreact to them. The autovotes give them the feeling of "having made it" on the platform and receiving flags threatens to remove their active income in the future. They often mention the $ amount they lose through flags or how "little" the amount they earn on posts is anyway, not realizing that half of it is in stake of the currency and the future potential of it. It's even more disappointing seeing authors that have been around for a long time mention this, surely they have been posting when the price of Steem was under 10 cents meaning that their 20$ post rewards back then are worth at least 100$ today, yet always somehow fail to mention that gain and only discuss the current loss.
Authors have gotten so used to almost no one flagging for disagreement of rewards that they get startled by them and see them as an attack. An often reoccurring statement is "go and flag those actually abusing the reward pool through plagiarism and self-votes" even though that is being handled daily and Steemcleaners who has received a massive delegation to help with that is doing their job.
I'm hoping that this will be the start of making flags seem more normal. You have to remember this is a free market, if someone goes and flags something its in his best interest to do so for the greater good of the platform, similar to how some curators try and distribute the stake as wide as possible, they indirectly do that through flags. One of Steems strengths is to have a healthy distribution compared to other cryptocurrencies out there. I also hope the way flags are perceived by authors changes over time, instead of whining over them the way they might do today, they should just accept them and move on. Not take it personally, not take it as a reason to write a ton of posts trying to shame said flagger, not take it as a reason to feel attacked so that they start powering down and leaving the platform. That's the reaction that has disappointed me the most.
I might have left a lot of examples and scenarios missing from the post, but I was hoping it will lead to some healthy discussion where we can continue to add upon it.
Let me know your views on this and how you feel about flags for disagreement of rewards in the comments.
Thanks for reading.
