You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How to create a meaningful Blockchain Constitution
It would be nice if that was all it took... but as we see different people have different definitions of aggression and other "facts" that would be pertinent to any dispute.
I never know what to say when I read your posts. What you're discussing is so obvious and far reaching and yet I never see those ideas discuss anywhere else, not even close. I look forward to this brighter future we're working on NOW!
Like most things in life, it is only obvious in hind site. It took many discussions with many smart people to distill these ideas.
You're right. In hind site it's now obvious.
The thing is those other suppose geniuses are so far off in the solution for the world. They never even mention money creation and wealth concentration. Well I have my reasons to think they're just not allowed. Anyway thank you again for your insights and your much needed work.
That IS all it takes.
Steemit would be an environment in which aggression was impossible.
Except for flags.
And therefore you have proven the point that different definitions of aggression. I do not consider flags to be a form of aggression considering we both consented to the Steem smart contract by virtue of our use of it.
You can consent to anything. Because you consent to something does not mean it is not agression.
I consented to high school football. If you have ever seen how us Texas boys play I think you would agree that aggressive is much too mild a word.
I considered boot camp in the Vietnam war to be easy by comparison to spring training.
I've not proved your point.
The two major problems that Steemit has are flags and bot vote harvesters.
Eliminate both and Steemit will be a much better place.
Consensual aggression sounds like an oxymoron but I get your point. Flags are a necessary part of Steem.
Like I said, consent has nothing to do with aggression.
I disagree, and the evidence supports me, regarding flags.
This is one definition of aggression:
By this definition you can't have consensual aggression but there's many definition possible to each and every words. That's why we need prior agreement or contract to avoid those kind of dispute.
Rules lawyers KNOW what the words mean, they try to twist them to mean something else.
If there is as contract, the rules lawyers will just confuse what "it' is...is there any "there" there?
Reasonable people can disagree on the meaning of words...
Today, maybe, but if the appropriate conventions get established, I don't think they need to be. I think that comments, the mute button, and up-vote removal can all interact to solve any problem that down-votes can solve.
For example, someone could comment on a post: "I think this post is plagiarized. Here is the original: [link]." Then, voters who think that it's important to avoid voting on plagiarism could evaluate the claim and either refrain from voting on it, or go back and remove their up-votes. This comes with a couple additional benefits, in that authors would be able to dispute the accusations, and up-votes to reward comments that identify plagiarism might even create a bounty system to incentivize discovery. Of course, the vote removal could be automated as certain accounts establish themselves as trustworthy plagiarism finders. (I wrote about that, too. here).
Where does it say in this smart contract what flags are for? Flags are most definitely being used in an aggressive way; on content that has nothing to do with the personal dispute of two users. By what definition of aggression is that non-aggressive?
I think when you click on the flag button you'll see the disclaimer and it must also be in the code description but I'm not sure about the second.
Also if you created an account on Steem you agreed to play by its rules and thus have given your consent.
There are no rules for flags, and if there were any, they would be unenforcable in the current set-up. That's the whole point.