The tongue on the trolley is always the button to be pressed.
It is the button with which I make my "upvote", it is the button with which I can give a "downvote". It is the button that allows "delegation", the button that says "publish" or "edit".
Each one of these buttons could work quite differently than currently.
The button is basically the translation of a spontaneous or thorough thought, an intention, a feeling.
What if my finger must linger over the button?
What if I would extend the time and integrate a delay between spontaneous intention and execution of my decision?
What if every time you press a button, a window appears with several variables or different options that make you and me think?
So that the person who gets used to such mechanisms very quickly will not simply disregard them and will soon be bored and ignore the same content every time you add slightly modified content to these popping up windows?
It would appeal to my reason, I would much rather have the impression that my decisions are worth reconsidering, and I would welcome such a security point. Also, I would know that everyone else would go through it as well. People behave much more sensibly if they are given autonomy or if they are given such trust beforehand. Especially when it's not an open decision making but one in the quiet chamber of self presence.
There is a reason why voting is done secretly.
The moment you step into open arguments it greatly can distort reason and make out of a sensible human being an enemy or opportunist. The open does not always reflect honest opinion and reasoning. I see it with myself. Some things I've openly said here, I probably did out of anxiety or pleasing reasons.
I believe what often leads to confusion here is the decentralization of blockchains in general and the organization of decisions in particular.
If people network socially and develop decisions regarding user behaviour and etiquette as well as participation and recognition methods, or, as in the case of Steemit, find these already in place, this has little to do with decentralised mechanisms.
I want you to give me feedback. In order for your feedback to be collectible I link to a voting method I call "Systemic Consensus".
To get an idea of what this is:
Systemic Consensus is a shortened and simple formal method to get FULL agreement between group participants.
If I told you that in decision making the discussion would take 10 days until all participants are really satisfied, and then I told you that it took only 10 minutes with the systemic method, you would probably be impressed. I was.
Here you can read an article of mine about that method and here you might want to follow my comment under an article from @justineh. Who sees herself as a Steemit ambassador and a communicator for the "normies" on this platform. I consider myself a normie, that's why I visited her blog.
Can we form a group, let's say up to 50 or 100 or 1000 people to try that method out here on Steemit? Who is in?
For a first experiment I suggest my proposals. If you want, you can make additions, of course. But for trying this method, I think the suggestions are enough without making it too complicated.
My intention is to have an exemplary model.
Give me your numbers in the comment-section and I will evaluate them. Or maybe some of you could give me an automatic method to do that? Any @devs here?
On a scale of 0-10, everyone can decide what resistance they feel towards a proposal. Where one decides upon the least resistance, one gives a 0. Where one decides upon the most resistance (pain), one gives a 10. All values in between are given by feeling. The lowest number in the end-result wins.
The graph here shows a very simple example and a small group of 4 colleagues making their choices where to have dinner. Lowest resistance number wins. The second graph is interesting, too. Because people may not feel that deciding that evening will do them good (maybe they had a long day).
Take the two hottest themes on Steemit and try to decide on several given proposals.
Give this experiment a try. The decision in the end will give everyone a good point of reference. ...
Down-votes - proposals
- There should be no down-vote button whatsoever. In a decentralized system downvoting isn't necessary, it's enough to provide the users with a banning-opportunity.
- In case, someone pushes the downvote-button, a window opens and asks the user: "Sure, you want to do this? Have you thought through every other alternative through which you also can make your case? What about waiting to the next day and see, if your emotions have calmed down?" "Do you think, your down vote will bring a change of opinion and positive behaviour to the one, which it should meet?"
- In case, someone pushes the down vote-button, he loses a significant part of his voting-power
- In case, someone pushes the down vote-button, there should be no monetary or power consequences whatsoever.
- In case, someone pushes the down vote-button more than 3 times, he is going to lose part of his voting power
- In case, someone pushes the down vote-button, he must give an upvote to some one else right after, otherwise the downvote will be removed.
Decide from 0-10 to each proposal
Distribution of pay-outs - proposals
As soon as the user pushes the button "publish" automatically a choice of different options will take place.
- Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 75/25.
- Before a user publishes his content via the "publish" button, he is automatically able to choose a freely selectable distribution of his pay-out. For a listing appears, which offers him up to 5 ratios: 50/50, 75/25, 35/65, 55/45, 85/15
- Before a user publishes his content via the "publish" button, he is automatically able to choose a freely selectable distribution of his pay-out. For a listing appears, which offers him up to 2 ratios: 50/50, 75/25
- Pushing the "publish" button, the user is automatically listed as minnow, dolphin, orca, whale. Depending on his power the distribution of his payout is automatically selected (minnow: 85/15, dolphin: 75/25, orca 65/35, whale 55/45)
- Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 50/50.
Exception to all: no payout at all or 100 % power up.
Decide from 0-10 to each proposal
button and hands by pixabay
Thanx to @cpufronz for providing me today with one link for systemic consensus. That one was new to me.
If you want to participate in the experiment, please, give me your numbers in the comments!
Like so - first number repeats the number of the proposal, second number represents your vote on it:
Thank you so much!
EDIT: In case you would want to participate but don't want to openly give the numbers, please contact me here and we can exchange the numbers on discord. You can find me there under the username erh.germany