Chuckling Through Discord

     One of things that I seldom talk about is the conversations I read over in the Discords. To be more specific, the Discords of @steemflagrewards and @steemcleaners. For the most part, the Steem Cleaners have the most back and forth with people coming into their channels.

     Often, conflicts resolve in quick and painless fashion. Although, it was not uncommon for dragged on anger fest. Sometimes, they are funny. Sometimes, they make you question people's sanity. I'll be the first one to admit that there exist no customer service personnel for those groups. But, they aren't businesses anyhow. They are more like community/neighborhood watch.

     There are occasions when things escalate and skirmishes involve libels and downvotes ensue. Usually, it's because some people felt like they were victims. While it's true that mistakes can happen, there's always a reason. The above two parties don't approach accounts out of nowhere. I can't say the same for individual members of those groups.

     From my experience, those conflicts can last either a few hours to ongoing. There are a lot more crazy people than you think out there on the chain. Many times, I found myself amazed by the persistence and absurdity.

     In the end, this is how I would feel after reading through those conversations.

the feels2.gif
Gif is a clip from Assassin's Pride intro

     Yeah, you get that feeling? I get that feeling. It's the feeling that you have lost a few brain cells understanding what went down on Discord. I can no longer tell if someone is trolling or dead serious about being stupid.

     Again, I would be lying if I said anti-abuse persons don't inflame the conversations. I often find the counterargument from the "victims" being "the community should decide". You know what goes through my mind?

     "What do you think is happening? The people from the community are deciding." Is it only a community if they agree with you? Is it not a DPOS system (despite how flawed it can be)?

     It's a thankless effort. People want a nice environment where no one would be abusing or exploiting the system. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough fundamental bounds set in the codes. The bounds I am talking about are the incentives. Things that discourage people to do crummy stuff.

     Sure, you can have your freedom, but I would like my stake to be worth something. Not first sell, first win. There is always consequences to every action. Whether how apparent they are is another story.

     I have ranted enough.

     At the end of the day, we could blame people being pricks in general. We could also blame top stakeholders not setting the tone. We could go another step further and blame the delay of community features and SMTs.

     After all, what could go wrong when we put a bunch of people with different values in one box? Steem is like an African nation with people who don't like each other put in one border. Then, everyone wonders why nobody gets along.

Comments 7

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

04.01.2020 02:41

Not only Africa, even America, Europe and Asia are filled with people who can't stand the sight of each other. We all have our own set of challenges. Last year French people destroyed public buildings and shops in Paris. Yesterday, Hong Kongers destroyed HSBC banks. Even years ago, within my small little lab in Malaysia, there were students sabotaging each other's experiment by deliberately switching off instruments or thawing competent cells crucial for cloning.

04.01.2020 12:56

After all, what could go wrong when we put a bunch of people with different values in one box?

That was just an expression to drive the point across. But yes, you are technically correct that hate goes on for one reason or another.

04.01.2020 13:44

Awe yes, the social boards can be quite exuberant, I had quite a chase myself the other day trying to explain to liberals that impeached is a misnomer at best, heads were exploding and popping everywhere. I was an idiot, ignorant, stupid....that was just the beginning, teach them that no where in the constitution does it say impeached and watch them carry back every copy of an "interpretation" of the constitution then the constitution itself. I told them I'll stick with the legal scholars who address it the proper context of a sentence as impeach a president or an impeachment of a president....then I had to throw them the English Dictionaries to try and highlight to them the errors of their ways.

im·peach′ment n.
Usage Note: When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. When a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.....
Testimonial evidence indicates that references to (and calls for) "impeaching" a public official are commonly understood to refer not simply to charging that official with misconduct "before a competent tribunal," but to actually removing the official from office. The interpretation is understandable if not legally accurate, since removal from office is typically the goal of impeachment, and there seems to be little doubt that the "remove" sense is what many people have in mind when they think or talk about impeaching a president, governor, judge, or other official. But clear examples of impeach being used to mean "remove" in published sources are rarely seen (in many contexts, the meaning is ambiguous), and when such use does occur, it is likely to be cited as an error.....

So you see I am not as ignorant as you seem to think. I can't help that your disgruntled and choose to be more vague and don't understand it is sited commonly in error and/or ambiguous at best.

04.01.2020 16:58

One of the issues in our present day is keeping the purity of the language. Everyone would like to reinterpret definitions for their own benefits.

There's evolution of a language, then there is intent to cause confusion.

04.01.2020 17:02


04.01.2020 17:40