You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: My thoughts on flags for disagreement on rewards
The situation yesterday caused a lot of heads to spin, feeling - as you say - as an attack. Having talked things through with Transisto at The Writers Block throughout the night, into early this morning - in a mostly calm and measured way - a lot of what he said and put to us made a lot of sense and I do agree he is looking out for the platform as a whole and the reward pool. Unfortunately emotions get the best of people, especially where potential monetary rewards are concerned.
The key here I believe is open lines of communication and I applaud Transisto for coming to our group and expressing his viewpoint.
Yeah, this is the biggest reason to it most of the time.
It's not just about the money, it's about someone having the ability to publicly trample you and degrade your hard work. How would you respond if a particularly rich client or investor came up to you in front of your co-workers and said "you're getting paid too much for your work, and I am going to talk to your boss about it"? Would your response be based on monetary interests alone?
I'd probably discuss with him as to what made him say that and why he thinks that way. I wouldn't go ahead and leave 10 notes saying I'm quitting.
To have a discussion, there needs to be a platform to do so. Steemit doesn't quite offer one. The way I see it, Michelle's only way to communicate with transisto after he flagged her posts was to post on the blockchain and share her feelings. She was offended from the action she felt was humiliating to her and I don't blame her. I reacted the same way a week ago. Granted, one post was enough for me to vent, but Michelle can write 5,000 words a day while I (unfortunately) cannot. Writers. We type a lot.
Besides, it's easy to say you'd try and have a discussion, but imagine some self-entitled creep screaming at you in front of your coworkers that he would PAY to ensure everyone sees you're worth less than people think you do. And then imagine that you have no way to answer him aside from, well, angry notes.
What? How are comments not the best place to do so, like we are doing right now?
Then write in the comments that don't get automatically upvoted by bots.
As I see it this "self-entitled creep" removed some of the rewards and left a comment, I'm surprised not more "co-workers" defended him seeing as he was doing the right thing and re-distributed rewards of recycled posts he thought were making too much for the interaction and views they were getting. The way she acted on it was to handle it in "overtime" where she got paid to vent over 1 flag and make up for the rewards she lost while threatening to quit her job.
"What? How are comments not the best place to do so, like we are doing right now?"
Technically, there's little difference between posts and comments on the blockchain. I do however think she should have refused payout on those posts. I should have done so with mine, too.
"Then write in the comments that don't get automatically upvoted by bots."
When bernie decided to bury me, he downbotted all my comments too. So... that can go either way but I do agree that as soon as conversation was started, there was really no need for more public posts that are not in some way a contribution to the discussion on the topic of reward pool distribution. It sounds like transisto was willing to talk, but I think the talking should have happened before flagging took place.
I would very much like to point out that I did not mean to call any actual person or user a self-entitled creep, but rather an imaginary rich customer. Also, I think that metaphor for away from us.
Bottom line is - the flagging / downvoting mechanism is broken and unclear to your average steemian, and so flagging can feel like public flogging and not just in the financial sense.
I concur @techslut, the best hash comes out here in the reply. In fact, many a times, I see that the censorship outcome is way more powerful to flag a reply than to flag down the payout of the post.