[c_prompt]

> Who would flag it? Can I trust them?

>This is the general problem of reputation, trust, authentication, and naming all in one. I think this project should aim to solve these problems sufficiently well to make things work effectively, and not solve them 100%. For instance, flagging could work by having a buddies list, and trusting their flags, and maybe their buddies' flags. That would be partially effective and better than nothing, but not perfect either. We would iterate and improve the flagging system with time.

If karma equated to Bitcoin in some way (i.e., had tangible value), where users were giving each other karma via upvoting, you could reward users with a "bounty" for correctly flagging content as a certain type (e.g., spam, CP, not relevant to sub). Mods for that sub then make the decision if the flag was appropriate. If it is, those who flagged correctly get the earned upvotes (which equate to bitcoins) divided among them.

[TheDong]

So you're saying if I create two accounts, one that posts illegal content and one that very quickly flags it, I'll gain a bounty from users each time?

If you're going to say that the reward now must entirely come from the person who posted said content, well, that requires also solving the problem of each poster having to have a sort of "deposit" of money, which is marginally better.

[c_prompt]

> So you're saying if I create two accounts, one that posts illegal content and one that very quickly flags it, I'll gain a bounty from users each time?

No. The bounty comes solely from dividing up the upvotes among the users who flagged the post. Additionally, the cost to flag is 1 karma (so there's a disincentive to try to censor content), but you get that 1 karma back if a mod agrees with the flag. If there aren't any upvotes, there isn't any bounty to be divided and distributed.

Edit: Here's an example of the way it could work - https://valme.io/c/gettingstarted/faq/5qqqs/whats-a-modqueue...