>If you downvote, you breach a contract between two parties which didn’t give you explicit permission. You take out the reward that somebody else considered ok for that post, without asking for his or her permission. You literally “steal” from the potential winnings of an author, without any consequence.

Rewards are not finalized until the payout is approved by stakeholders. All stakeholders get to have a say in that process, including the ones who oppose the payout. They are not an independent third party, they are directly party to the contract as stakeholders of Steem.

Downvoting is a necessary part of the system. I do agree though that it is doing harm though, despite being necessary. I wrote some posts which propose a system to minimize the need for flagging by making votes which contain greater information from the stakeholders.

[Loss Aversion on Steemit](https://steemit.com/steemit/@demotruk/loss-aversion-on-steemit)

[Up and Down Votes Are A Big Part of the Problem on Steemit](https://steemit.com/steemit/@demotruk/up-and-down-votes-are-a-big-part-of-the-problem-on-steemit)

I really like Steemit, and can only hope that what we're experiencing here falls under the broader heading of "growing pains." 

For me, the most important thing to remember-- and to keep stressing-- is that communities are built by *people*, not by technology or scripts or bots. And so, when we look at these issues now surfacing, they are ultimately "people issues" not technology issues... which seems to be *your* undertone, as well. 

Maybe it would behoove everyone to look *outside* Steemit and look at the broader dynamics of startups. There tends to be a core group of early adapters who end up as significant stakeholders because they took the risk of getting involved early. They end up as "micro-millionaires" on the back of... well, very little but good timing and good fortune. 

Nothing *wrong* with that... but their simply *human attachments* subtly shifts from having a vision of the project going forward to *"preserving my pile of gold."* And it's just human nature at work... not evil intent. You look at people who invested in a private offering in a company, and they start wholesale dumping their stake immediately as the IPO goes out... "holding onto the gold." At which point the long term stakeholders jump in and make *long term investments.*

How does this relate to the flagging and related? Well, it's a sort of battle of "the old, let's not change anything" vs. longer term community members. The inherent fear of *"I'll get LESS, if I allow things to change."* Of course, few will fess up to that in public, but the underlying psychology is there.

So what truly FUELS Steemit, going forward? Houston, we have a problem. Or at least a conundrum... this bills itself as a "social" site, yet it seems rather dominated by bots, scripts and technology. Well "rewarded" content can have 300 upvotes but has been READ 25 times? That makes little sense... especially if you're a content creator trying to make the decision *"Should I set up shop here?"*

I don't know about anyone else, but I like to collect *readers* not *bot-pings."* If I'm an artist, and I post pictures of my art and link to my web site? I'm pretty sure those bots aren't going to go to my web site and order a piece of art! 

Whereas I can see your point about "breach of contract," I can also wrap myself around viewing the first 24 hours more as a curation *process,* a period during which the "score" for my content is determined, through some form of community consensus. Not everyone is going to like what I created. Such is art, writing, photography, protests, politics and what have you.

So I'm really OK with someone casting a "minus vote" for not liking the *content*-- not so much with casting a minus vote as a protest against *others liking* the content... which seems like what we're dealing with.

From where I am sitting, it's not the flagging-- itself-- that's hurting the price of Steem, but the relative *arbitrariness* of that flagging... which creates unrest, instability and division in the community. And an unstable community is not an attractive investment...

For a new user, for an uninitiated, how to see a flag, who made the flag?

> So it’s not the algorithm, it’s not the code, it’s not the UI, it’s not the marketing, it’s the people. 

Preaching to the choir.

I must say though, that there is a explicit governance that is called Proof of Stake.  In this case Ignorance is not bliss.

Sorry to comment twice.
I think you are mistaken in thinking that someone is stealing by downvote/flag. Using a downvote/flag is equivalent to applying an upvote to all other content equally during that 24 hour period. Also, by using an upvote your are then down-voting all other content that you have not upvoted during that same 24 hour period. You can not have two equal operations and then say that each one is opposite of each other. By your logic, a person upvoting one piece of content is breaking a contract of another  content that was not upvoted. Therefore to not break contracts you must vote for all content or you will be in violation of contracts.

Great article

I don't quite agree that flagging is the biggest issue afecting the steem price,but I agree that it's the biggest problem to solve.It scares people away,and gives Steemit a bad reputation.
Upvoted and resteemed.

Thanks for finally speaking up on the issue. I appreciate it. Resteemed.

Unfortunately, Steemit is a pretty amazing simulacrum of Capitalism. It generates some pretty cool product, but also amplifies greed, jealousy, obsession, etc. 

As a new Steemit user, I feel happily shaded from the "Bad Whales" and other flaggers/downvoters. I don't post particularly controversial material, and I take a fairly small portion of the daily pot home.

I admittedly have not been on here long enough to understand the nuances of flagging/ downvoting, but this argument is certainly a compelling argument that suggests that the negativity of the act is *literally* the bane of the Steemit economy!

Circulating **positivity** (even if it means grinning and baring the success of others) will make Steem a valuable currency. We have a unique opportunity to create literal value by just following the rules that we were all taught in K-5:

1) Participate
2) If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything

Thanks for a well-articulated, thoughtful post, @dragosroua

Thank you for a well thought and said post dragosroua. 
Now how do you get the whales to read it?

They don't understand the dynamic, because they are an unconscious part of it.
A better platform should be along any day.

Well said @dragosroua. You have valid points and I hope they will make certain people think.

> Every bilateral contract should be inviolable by a third party.

There is no contract between the author and the upvoter as the author has provided no consideration. Writing the post does not count as consideration, as past consideration is no consideration. It is even arguable whether the upvoter has provided consideration.

A voluntary upvote against an already written post is about as far away from a contractual arrangement as you can get. And it's probably best to keep it that way.

> Steemit doesn’t even have a governance mechanism in place.

I think there is merit to delegating downvoting to moderators ("Flag Review Council") that act on behave of the community as a whole. In the same way Witnesses do. Downvoting should be reserved for abuses of the system and exercised sparingly.  

Because of the negative connotations a downvote carries should not be subject to the individual whims of whales. However bad or well reasoned a flag is, it should be viewed as a collective flag from the community not an individual.

Flagging spam or plagiarised content should operate pretty seamlessly in the background. Nothing can be more unappealing to new joiners than to see existing members bickering over who should get how much of the spoils.

> If you downvote, you breach a contract between two parties which didn’t give you explicit permission. You take out the reward that somebody else considered ok for that post, without asking for his or her permission. You literally “steal” from the potential winnings of an author, without any consequence.

This is a really damaging and misleading interpretation. There is no contract in breach, the permission is not explicitly required as it is implicitly granted by the system. I'm sorry but this is an incorrect interpretation.

Not I'm not defending this as a ways the system should work but by using steem you are granted the ability to vote up or down as you please, as is everyone. There is no contact.

Very interesting.. thanks for the post.

https://steemitimages.com/0x0/http://i64.tinypic.com/2pzim2p.jpg

This is why we need tip based community.

I love being on Steemit and I love the posts from @dragosroua because they make me think and learn.

Greed, pride, jealousy, these are not invented by Steemit. They are human feelings and so is happy, contentment or the "fact" that I love Steemit.

Downvote is feeling bad about something or it can be help, if you write in a comment why you downvote. 
Upvote is feeling great about something.

People will come back to Steemit again and again if they feel great about being here.

I will leave Steemit the day I can not find good feelings anymore.
I do not think this will happen §;-)

Yes!!! Your perspective on downvoting is the most profound argument I've heard so far! Very well put! It does infringe on the rights of "fans" to reward content from authors they like and it is a personal affirmation that should remain inviolable!

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/683778713044656131
spreading the word of steemit all over the internet.

> Who wants to live in a country where people are constantly fighting with each other?

Thanks for your message which I consider very important! 
That was one of the key sentences to me: 
> So it’s not the algorithm, it’s not the code, it’s not the UI, it’s not the marketing, it’s the people. 

It´s neither the system nor the arm that *change* a person´s behavior. People act driven by their established value systems and their beliefs. And they tend to follow the most powerful. To stick with your example: if flagging is shown as a valid instrument to express power by the most powerful, others - with less power - will use it as well. Flagging has become kind of *trendy* on steemit. 

Even in a decentralized eco-system you need some alpha-males as *role models* that live the values which will sustain the system in the long run. Just believe in a friends party. Nobody will start dancing until one conquers the dancefloor and animates others to join. Any community needs powerful, positive, progressive and inspiring *leaders* - people others can look up to - that love to push forward the whole thing. They are all here, just have been a bit quiet lately...:)

I am absolutey convinced that steemit - and steem - has everything that it needs to become an attractive investment again. In my opinion it just has to be woken up again... Maybe some of these *dancefloor conquerers* are listening right now :)