> you have never produced anything deserving a flag.

Disagree.

//Edit:
@smooth has explained above.
Also I downvoted this comment due to "disagreement on rewards".

Let´s implement this Vote-Canceling as soon as possible @dantheman, I support it 100% with my witness.
Also, please read my short important article about @karenmckersie : https://steemit.com/kicking/@fyrstikken/kicking-little-old-lady-down-the-stairs

@krnel is one of the people I know 100% is for the best of the platform, and if "vote-canceling" needs to be approved, I approve it and I am sure so will many others because a huge part of the community has had enough of this whale-police BS now.

Isn't that what whales are trying to do, the main argument is whales voted so whales downvote :D

Thanks Dan :)

Can you provide info on the [recent post](https://steemit.com/flagging/@krnel/vote-negation-flag-review-council-other-solutions) for the issues with the flag negation? Looking for what the whole issue involves to learn more about it. Thanks!

I think whether or not he has produced anything deserving of a flag is subjective. It also depends on how much stake is already voting for that content. It could be good content, but still over-valued. Is that not one of the stated intentions of flagging, @dantheman? Disagreement on rewards?

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/681743255410319373
Dan you are one of the flaggots. you have flagged me personally.
Spreading the word about the censorship on this platform the last month seems to be making people notice. to bad its already to late and none of you wanted to listen earlier.

I strongly disagree. Without getting into the underlying question of whether his posts are generally overrewarded, his repeated whining and ranting about voters disagreeing on the value of his content do not add value and should not be rewarded (and if rewarded should be flagged) and attacking other members for voting as they see fit by using name calling and making false accusations (both a form of trolling) are absolutely deserving of a flag.

And this post of his will be flagged by me if is significantly rewarded. There is nothing here that brings value to Steem, most obviously because it is repetitive and redundant, being is fifth or more post airing the same complaint (a form of spamming).

> your contributions are much more valuable than others that get up voted

This is entirely subjective, according to your tastes. I just wanted to make sure you do realize that just because you believe this, doesn't make it true. I would say that @mynameisbrian's comics are severely under-rewarded. That's my subjective opinion. Neither of these statements are objective facts. They are both opinions. Everything is subjective, that seems to be the way this system works, right?

> What are you ultimately doing on Steemit?
What is your goal being here?
Is it about you improving your financial position?
Is it about you and Steemit improving?
Or is it about you, Steemit and the world improving?

That was what said in my post on steemit succeeds of we make it succeed, less than 3 weeks after joining.

My goal is the bottom one. Help people evolve consciousness to change their individual lives, and the world, and using Steemit to do it. Truth and specifically moral truth is #1. I'm trying to get people to care for truth, moral truth, and understand the responsibility to learn about both the positive/negative, truth/falsity, right/wrong, moral/immoral, good/evil, etc. Some people don't recognize the value of that content and try to suppress the information from reaching more people.

Thanks for the feedback, good points made.

> "What do you WANT? What do you/we/anyone WANT Steemit to be?" I'd almost say it should be a mandatory community assignment for everyone to go ponder that question and write an essay about it, and post it to a new tag called "community vision." Or something. But get people OUT of "reactivity" and INTO "responsiveness."

Good idea!!!

get a coffee.

Then let's address the issue of flagging as a community, like when I asked a definition of certain terms and was given nothing by the flaggers. I'm asking for real guides, rules, criteria, so that people can be evaluated in their flagging in a consistent manner, and then it can be addressed when bad flagging occurs. Does the community care about the type of content being flagged, quality or not? Either way, consistent criteria for flagging gives people an understanding of when a flag is merited or not.

When I said "Many people fear the negative and getting involved in standing for something that doesn't directly, immediately and personally involve them." This is true. Many people fear the negative. Most people don't go into the learning the negatives in the world. Looking at problems isn't fun, and when they don't concern us we don't really want to get involved. So people don't want to get involved. I have had chats with people who do support me behind the scenes but not so much to start making noise about the issue in their own posts. Fear of reprisals, etc. is there. I have talked about that in a link in this post for ostracism and what keeps people from recognizing an issue or speaking about it. Fear of the negative applies on man levels. I had fear of the negative to even do this. So you're wrong saying "There's no reason to believe that". You just don't understand how it works.

If people wanted to understand what I said, and not invent other ideas, they would read the data on when the flagging started for content that someone simply didn't like, like consciousness and morality. And how that repeated. People don't, and then try to make this about other things, creating straw mans of the issue. I asked for criteria, was told no definition is required for how it works, and it just kept going on. I had enough and called it out in a post with facts about when it started, and how there is no consistency in how it is applied, and defined the word hypocrite and integrity to demonstrate that this is not rational behavior. Many people see what is going on, not just me. I just spoke up about it, and loudly.

I tried the fact based approach after trying to getting info prior, and still people who say they read the post skip over the issue of targeting certain types of content I put out, and the refusal to identify the criteria for their claims of justification for the flags. The behavior is hypocritical when "overrewarded" and "whale swarm" can be applied to anything with no criteria that is consistent, and when posts that have more rewards than my post don't get flagged. It's not rational. Asking for a definition, criteria, rules, is rational to ask for someone to explain how they are doing something, yet it gets no answer. The reasons they gave where not honest. False reasons for why they were doing it and justifying it with vague parameters that they apply as they see fit. Meanwhile other posts they vote for go above $100 and no flags... wo0ot that's a great "community" to be a part of while that is ignored and I bring it up and people still don't see the problem and then target me for bringing up the issue.

"Maybe people will eventually give a shit if the noise is so loud they have no choice but to pay attention."

> Sounds like a threat. 

You're trying hard to find fault at any turn... Make noise about a problem, and people will pay attention. Say nothing, and then what? Was my first post was too much data and definitions for people to bother processing to understand what I was saying? Then I kept getting hit by these whales for my other content that had nothing to do with calling them out. So I just kept calling them out on their bullshit. This flagging issue has grown since I talked about it, as @karenmckersie has posted about her experience as well. 

Maybe this is enough noise? Maybe not? Maybe more posts need to come out about the flagging issue? 

When will something change in the community? When enough people are aware there is a problem and recognize the need for things to change... that's when! Hence, the need for more noise then...

Organizing requires people to speak up on issues for the overall community to get a consensus. But you mean organizing with what, 5-10 people, and what would that do? 10 people do what? I tried to show the irrationality of flagging for certain content, or because some specific whale voted on it that they don't like, but yet the people who came to comment didn't seem to get it or just ignored it. I speak up about this, and more denial of the issue persists, so I persisted. You can view me however you like. Your ability to perceive what I'm saying correctly is under question repeatedly, since you think I'm threatening something other than noise lol... I don't want to waste time addressing your other appraisals of me and explaining how unity works, community, etc. in order to correct that.

I already said what I wanted in the first post, and here, but maybe you have a better solution? Criteria for flagging, consistency, not agenda driven flagging because its about a certain topics not liked, or from a certain whale who upvoted, , or not meeting a view quota, or other reasons that don't apply to everyone. Make it rational with criteria. Why aren't all posts above $100 flagged? lol...

Have a good one ;)