Actually I'm not a game enthusiast, I'm a game designer... a bit of a difference there.
> I wouldn't run into a random village, taking a piss everywhere, spraying graffiti all over without expecting consequences?
A social network is not a single village. A social network is a network of clusters of small communities. Giving absolute policing powers to everyone works in small communities where everyone is on the same page, everyone shares a common interest (survival of the community itself) and, crucially, everyone is free to leave for another small community which better fits them individually. IT DOES NOT work in any human community above the level of a small tribe (say 50-200 persons or so).
And for that level of community policing there are already tools available which do work and have been known to work well since there was internet, and even before. Groups. Group administrators. Why doesn't steemit have groups is a question I keep asking and keep failing to get a sarisfactory answer.
> How is it materially damaging? Post payouts are not even paid out before it's finalised by the end of X days.
You lose reputation (which is absolute and does not take into account that people can have equally valid yet completely opposed opinions and tastes, which I find strange at best and odious at worst). And the downvote is deducted from your earning for the post. How is it NOT materially damaging?
> And then you mentioned about MMORPGs - don't they have items where people can buy to become more powerful and be utilised in part of a game?
Sure some of them do, but Pay-to-Win is really frowned upon by gaming community at large and if your game gets labeled as such it will very negatively impact your sales. But some folks do like that. And there is a second mechanic too which is not liked by everyone, and that is harsh death penalties. It usually negatively impacts the popularity of the game, but hey some people like that so there are those games... HOWEVER. There is NO GAME, not ONE SINGLE succesful game which combines these two mechanics - pay to win AND harsh death penalties. This is pure death. Players can pay money to hurt you for real. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would play a game like that. Or to be more precise, new players come in, see what's the score and bugger off in a second. I will not invest my money and time for an opportunity to be materially abused without any chance of defending myself. That is pure game design poison. As pure as can be.
> But as a game enthusiast, you're actually proposing the total inability for community members to reduce potential payouts, leaving out an attack vector for exploits on so many levels. So what if flags are "defanged", giving everybody else ways to exploit the game up to "unlimited" earnings? With a community board just stating inconsequential opinions.. then what happens? It's not likely the relevant community members that are adding to the abuse/exploit gonna correct themselves - they're the ones doing it in the first place. This is will kill the entire system. Even worse is that it allows self-voted spam to go unchecked.
You seem to place inordinate amount of trust in the "goodness of people". You expect the "community" to police itself fairly. This reveals to me that you really see steemit community in terms of a small tribe or village model, where everyone holds approximately the same values. Well, this is not going to work. As I mentioned elsewhere, what is stopping someone from purchasing several millions $$ worth of steem and absolutely DOMINATE the entire platform with, for example, neo-nazi or white supremacist or, I don't know, even pedophiliac content? Really? As if this positive feedback thing you got going with accumulation of wealth is not bad enough, you now add a tool which enables those on top to actively prevent anyone else from ever raising up?
Imagine I'm Facebook and I don't like Steem. I see it as a rival. I buy as much steem as I deem appropriate and proceed to make the platform a living hell through upvoting crap and flagging anyone who displays a smidgen of quality. I'll destroy the platform in a couple of months and if I'm smart enough even make a pretty penny while doing it. And look at the loosers, they even provided me with tools with which to destroy them!
> Power have to be bought into - this improves the value for everyone else.
Does it? Or does it only improve the value of those who already have the power?
> Downvotes are just as much a scarce resource as upvotes. Sometimes I even downvote comments that I don't want seen at the top of my posts, or anyone else's just because as an individual, I have my own taste on setting my own standards on what I think provides a good reading experience. Is that cyberbullying? That's just perception.
No, that is using your power to impose your tastes and opinions on others. I find that odious. I have nothing against you voicing your opinion or expressing your disagreement with someone. But using your power to prevent third parties from even seeing your opponent's opinions is just plain wrong. Not only to your opponents, but to other users who should not be prevented from seeing things on your whim.
But all this in academic really. People are beginning to leave traditional social networks, and one of the prime reasons, if not THE prime reason is exactly this kind of censorship we're talking about. People are joining Minds because they can be sure that they can see what they want to see and that they can write what they want to write without anyone telling them what they should and shouldn't be thinking or doing. Steemit has a fantastic opportunity to ride that wave but not with systems which, in practice, are even more censorious than those of the traditional social networks.
I'm not saying all is lost here, basically I'm here for fun and research as I'm designing a virtual-economy system for a blockchain based game-related app that is supposed to have millions of users globally (fingers crossed). I like steem as it is one of the new platforms I'm researching, primarily for its blockchain component. And I'll probably personally use it for a photography hobby of mine because it seems that this is one area that steem might be good for - totally non controversial stuff that no one in their right mind can object to. Pretty pictures. And not much else, sorry. And even there I can see unscrupulous photographers using their voting power to stamp out rivals based on their "taste". This might not be the case now, but from my experience with these massively online social networks and economies, even that might be a possible scenario for the future. NEVER assume that just because you are a nice person, everyone else is. From my experience as a games and systems designer, the best if not the only way to prevent abuse is to never give users the tools that can be abused in the first place. Don't give out people guns if you don't want them to end up shooting each other. No, human psychology does not work that way. You either have a central authority which has a monopoly over violence or you abolish violence altogether. Giving everyone unfettered means to mete out violence to anyone they please leads only to hell, everyone either dead or leaving. As I said, this may work on small communities where you can simply leave and go somewhere else where tastes and opinions are more to your liking, but it does not work at all for large networks which are supposed to provide a platform for smaller communities and even individuals.
> Controversial does not mean interesting btw..
For you maybe, but to me and a lot of people like me, things that everyone agrees on are boring. I don't have the time to waste on something "everyone knows" is right. Yawn. I already know that so why the hell should I read it?
> I've likened Steem as an MMORPG, but like everything else, even if we can reason out intelligibly that X = Y, doesn't mean that it's all 100% the same, like how you're trying reason out that what worked or didn't work for MMORPGs is entirely applicable to something like Steem. Not nearly the same thing.
Of course no thing is exactly the same as any other thing. However, the principles of communication, risk-rewards, cost-benefits, sociological structuring and evolution etc etc are 100% mappable from mmorpgs to social networks. These matters deal with basic human nature and psychology, and that is always the same across all media and all platforms and over tens of thousands of years. Again, ignore these insights and experiences at your own peril.