Vote Negation

@dantheman had previously suggested an idea for an alternative to flags which encompass vote negation to reduce rewards, but there are various unknown reasons to not implement it as he closed the issue with:

"Hello everyone. We have been debating this issue and I have concluded that a better approach is needed. More details on why and what alternatives exist will be forthcoming."

Here is the issue on github: Add ability to Negate / Oppose another Voter.

I don't think those details were put in that issue, as I didn't see them. Maybe they are elsewhere? I would like to learn more about the issues raised.

It seems most contentions were the fear that Steemit, Inc. would abuse this. I don't see this as founded. There is also the suggestion that this is the same as flagging and wouldn't change anything.

Flag Review Council

Dan had also suggested a flagging review council in another comment interaction I had with him at some point (I don't recall which post it was on, sorry). This council would be voted on like witnesses, or might also require certain criteria such as reputation, number of posts, comments, etc. to determine who is the best suited for evaluation of flags when they are reported.

There could be a review process established, with entries for each flag review that a member submits that determine the overall consensus if a flag was justified or not. Then the flag either stays or gets lifted.

If neither of this then... I still see a need for defined criteria, standards or rules for how "overrewarding" works in a consistent manner, not just flagging based on certain types of content a flagger doesn't like, certain whales who upvote, certain authors, certain view counts, etc.

A general understanding of what a post/content can provide for Steemit and how it promotes it's success might help to set upper limits for everything?

Issues, Alternatives?

Feedback, criticism, alternatives, etc. requested.

Thank you.