Self voting should be removed, but also what if vote value was related to how close two users are to eachother in reputation? What if two large whales, that use the website every single day, don't have

"downvote" a flag should be used for much more serious things on a platform advocating against censorship, although it is not censorship, it can quickly restrict users from seeing or wanting

I 'identify' with this entirely. As an online pseudonym who would like to get out and make a change through peaceful means, I am restricted by the unawareness of the law held by law enforcement. Officers

I think that is a very difficult cop-out to make to just say "I hope ethical behavior prevails" this is the internet and placing a dollar value next to a post influences greed. More on topic

i believe that this cryptocurrency an this platform have amazing potential :) Amazing potential either way, but as far as exploit-ability, whales will always carry the weight and be able to reward themselves

Which can be a good and bad thing. Depending on hype, which is coming, whether I agree that it's warranted or not, Steem will be creating an economy based on tokens, that is monitored by bots and large

"So what do the rest of the users do that is engaging?" It's true and is a valid point. On most media platforms, there is a ratio of 90:10 for consumption and creation respectively. But it is

I don't think flagging should have any significance unless it is content against the site's terms that may be eligible for ban, only then should an administrator have an auditable decision to make about

"Images were hidden due to low ratings." SO I can't even properly view this post to join an educated discussion about the improvement of this site because it was removed by the flags/downvotes

I guess that makes perfect sense ethically, but the excuse can't simply be that it's 'in their best interests' to act innocently within a fundamentally exploitable environment, audit-able or not, I've

But don't whales have 'less' by giving out votes? Doesn't this discourage a large user from voting unless it's truly beneficial to themselves or not voting at all?

Good, valid reply. I guess as a new user it's sort of discouraging for interaction to see most posts marked as irrelevant spam; but I do understand where value is important and reducing gamification is

Exactly, whales are whales because of their base mass. The largest most reputable accounts have those most weight in the value of their opinions, regardless of how they got there. I know there are whales

Very very fundamentally exploitable, there should be a master thread for these things if Steem is going for transparency and progression of their platform's ethics.

Great tools thank you! I used them to test out minds.com steemit and a few other sites I use a ton, good grades all around!

You've been paid 'instantly'? by what means were you able to instantly collect payment?

I agree with the premise of content quality finding its worth in votes, but I'm concerned with what happens when demand leaves and there is an inability to cash out to all users regardless of an mechanism

I guess my valid question would be, what is deemed a legitimate meaningful response to an introductory piece of content here? I notice they all become voted down. Seems quite discouraging for innocent

How does the average newbie user gain initial voting weight?