You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Downvote early, downvote often
This is a nice paradox: having the courtesy to explain to someone why they have been flagged. To use an analogy in the physical encounter, it would be like punching someone unexpectedly in the stomach. Then you would bow politely and say gently, "I punched you in the stomach because I don't support your action."
It's also like walking by a street performer or a bar-tender and thinking, "I don't like this performance/presentation, so I'll just kick over their tip jar, so their tips will be redistributed to the 'best' (top earners) street performers and bar-tenders (who already have the lion's share of tips)."
I greatly appreciate your comments.
Yes, you know, I think the paradoxical situation is basically quite fine, because it is able to represent something very interesting: That there is no praise and no punishment at all, but actually always only one lesson to take and give. In the most positive sense of all. It describes a spontaneous being alive in situations of contemporary nature. When I receive such a lesson, which I do not consider either as punishing or praising, I can take it as a question addressed to me: Is what the other person is saying to me in any way consistent? Then I say: Thank you for the lesson, there is a part of it that inspires me to change my action/thoughts. If the lesson is not coherent, I say: Thank you for the lesson and your intention to give me one. Only I did not need it right now. Thanks anyway.
Now the analogy I am using is just an analogy. The punching in the stomach didn't really happen. Neither did the knocking over of the tip jar from your example.
I think what those who have a similarly humorous view of downvotes want to express is that they acknowledge that a virtual currency is simply virtual and the actions here need not have any physical consequences. It is easily said that the 7-day window represents a quantity in the making. As long as it lasts, every up- or downvote is nothing more than an ongoing process. You are neither punished nor rewarded in this becoming.
In principle I have nothing against this view. It does, however, presuppose that those in the process of becoming the result of the votes will see it that way, and that they will see it as a game that is not to be taken too seriously.
In so far as I cannot assume that the recipient of my downvotes does not have the same view, I would have to ask him beforehand, in order to ensure that he can become a friend with this idea, whether he agrees with me that I merely want to give him a friendly lesson in the form of a downvote. If he says: "Yes", then I end up back at the initial question, what is the point of downvotes, right? Because as far as the content is concerned, I have not yet said anything about the lesson in question. So we would have a friendly exchange about it, he would accept my lesson with thanks.
If everyone was always ready for a lesson and an up- or down-vote would result in a self reflexive questioning of the author of a publication, someone who receives a down/up-vote would ask himself: "Oh, so I received a down-vote ... what is that supposed to tell me? In deed, I think that everyone already knows when writing an article that there are some things they shouldn't say or write like that, but they do it against their better judgment. Same goes for the things expressed which one considers probably coherent (we know always as a Hintergedanke --> look at quote No. 9 from bottom of the site up.
This completely self-referential approach is a tough challenge for people, but of course we can do exactly that. Why? Because it is fun. After all - and this is world famous - you wouldn't accept a ready-made answer from another person anyway, if you wouldn't give it to yourself as well.
Since I don't assume that people see this as a paradoxical environment, but one that should be taken seriously, I cannot give any downvotes, because there is no convention in the classical sense of the word. I need people who accept lessons in the way I need them.
The hintergedanke quote from Alan Watts reminds me of a quote from Robert Anton Wilson, "Everbody's an a--hole and if you think you're not an a--hole, that just proves you're the worst kind of a--hole".
LOL :D
... Wilson ... Wilson ... is this not a science fiction author?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anton_Wilson
Robert Anton Wilson
Robert Anton Wilson (born Robert Edward Wilson; January 18, 1932 – January 11, 2007) was an American author, novelist, essayist, editor, playwright, poet, futurist, and self-described agnostic mystic. Recognized by Discordianism as an Episkopos, Pope, and saint, Wilson helped publicize the group through his writings and interviews.
Wilson described his work as an "attempt to break down conditioned associations, to look at the world in a new way, with many models recognized as models or maps, and no one model elevated to the truth". His goal being "to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone but agnosticism about everything."Wilson was a major figure in the counterculture, comparable to one of his coauthors, Timothy Leary, as well as Terence McKenna and others.
I mean, I'm not one to simply "appeal to the rules" (INTP), but it states very clearly in the official (unofficial) steemit conduct guide (I'm paraphrasing here), "do not downvote for disagreements (differences of opinion) downvotes are for gross misconduct (criminal behavior) and please leave a note explaining why you downvoted".
This seems like it would solve at least 99% of the complaints.
I would rather think that this guide raises more questions than it answers. I detect a certain pattern of mutual aggression-pleasure in the downvote wars. A lust, in a sense. Buttered by a kind of confusion and not letting go from a once-fixed standpoint. In principle, a thief recognizes the other, but finds thievery unfair if someone is better at it. One could also try humour. Only, one must really feel it.
What is being fought about at all? Sometimes I ask myself whether the content is still important to anyone. Is it even a good idea to monetize digital expression if it's seen as too important a source of income ...? It's nice to see something quantitatively rewarded, but making it the most important thing?
This can be seen as an experiment in which there is no control centre to intervene and the users are left to their own devices. And perhaps for the first time we can understand how difficult it actually is to find consensus. I once tried to take up the topic of consensus and offer a formal method where it would have been easy to capture it in statistics. Here, my contributions to it (the second one explains the method):
https://steemit.com/systems/@erh.germany/play-with-me-an-invitation-of-changing-the-habit-of-like-and-don-t-like
https://steemit.com/steemstem/@erh.germany/groupthink-a-systemic-view-on-group-decisions-and-consensus
This is what you and me are used to:
😒 1 % = almost no like , 😊 100 % = I like it a lot
This is what you and me could become used to:
✌ 0 % = least resistance, 😩 100 % = greatest resistance
;-)
It's a real-world test of libertarian ideals.
I've always said that libertarian ideals lead to MOBSTER ETHICS.
And while I'd absolutely love to be proven wrong, I'm not sure much hope is warranted.
The only intrinsic advantage steem has is the TRANSPARENT blockchain.
At least people can see what's going on "behind the scenes", and that makes it harder to fool the newbz.