THE USAGE OF (voting) BUTTONS: RELOAD?


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?

t would appeal tto 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 wuld probably bbe impressd. 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

  1. 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.
    1. 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?"
  2. In case, someone pushes the down vote-button, he loses a significant part of his voting-power
  3. In case, someone pushes the down vote-button, there should be no monetary or power consequences whatsoever.
  4. In case, someone pushes the down vote-button more than 3 times, he is going to lose part of his voting power
  5. 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 takeplace.

  1. Pushiing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 5/25..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
  2. 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
  3. 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)
    1. Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 50/50.

Excepton to all: no payout at all or 100 % power up.

Decide from 0-10 to each proposal


picture sources:
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:
1: 3
2: 5
3: 7
etc.
Thank you sso 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 sthe username erh.germany#0661.


Comments 45


I've just resteemed. Now I'm going to look at the proposals and give my values. Hope I do it right.

At least you're trying to make things better. Beats sitting on the sidelines and just complaining.

Good to see you Erika. I've been writing and creating digital art during the hiatus.

Hope your experiment gets a rousing response.

Warm regards and affection,
AG

My values for the first question:

1 = 10

2 = 5

3 = 5 (shouldn't lose too much)

4 = 10

5 = 5

6 = 0 ( l like that...it should cost you if you take something away. It shouldn't be easy to take from others--that is what a downvote does)

Question 2

1 = I don't understand the proposition

2 = 8 (only would work in Utopia, I think )

3 = 8

4 = 8

03.09.2019 17:53
2

hey, my dear AG!

Many thanks for the resteem and your participation in this. You already know that method and again you are gifting me with your time and effort to it. This time though it was a little easier, I guess :-)

Question 2: I changed the first proposal, I hope for a better understanding.

Complaint is often so useless even though it gives a short term satisfaction. But never lasts and never gives joy in the sense of an idea can.

Have a good morning (or already day), my friend!
<3 LOVe,
Erika

03.09.2019 18:18
2

Hello Dear Erika, I do admire your determination to bring all of us into a reasonable analytic approach. I'm willing :)

I like the way you word #1 of the second question now. Definitely, that gets a 0. The same for everyone. Fair shot. That's what I want.

As for your question about my resistance to #2 (question 2): I think we live in a cynical universe. I am an idealist, as you may guess, but I think the cynics would rule if #2 prevailed. The rest of us would be like goldfish in a tank of sharks. Look at Steemit now. The bad behaviour of bots and whales. Some people just aren't nice :)

Today was a slow day on Steemit. I hope response to this picks up tomorrow. It really is a reasonable way to approach consensus.

I'm trying to ignore New Steemit. Just proceding as before. As long as my friends are around, I'm peaceful.

Very nice to see your post today. Made me happy.

Love from the States, where a hurricane menaces, (but not in New York, I hope)
AG

04.09.2019 05:08
1

I very much appreciate your openness to this topic. Thank you so much!
My answer got - again - long. I apologize. If I would be able to express it briefly, I would :D

I believe that, in the long run, the systemic consensus in all would bring to light reason rather than the needy sides of the human race. Why Steemit seems to behave differently as a small system has, in my eyes, to do with how the whole platform was founded. Young people have a business idea that promises wealth. Whoever goes public with this promise attracts the needy and greedy qualities of people accordingly.

The cynicism reminds me of my experiences with the Unconditional Basic Income when I was still actively working in the group here in Hamburg. When people are asked whether they would continue to work with a UBI themselves, most say "but of course", but when they have to assess whether the others would continue to work, they say "No". Other people are viewed with suspicion, while one knows of oneself that one needs a task in life and that the experience of generosity is better than stinginess or narrow-mindedness.

If one were to make a new assessment on the basis of this insight, the result would change. But we are so used to mistrust others that we value the pain of bad experiences higher than the joy of good experiences.

My provocative invitation to you: If you can exchange the cynical assessment for a construction of the world as you would like it to be, would you take another view? Maybe a part of you might say that if you had the choice, you would choose the larger part of the cake? But what would your other part say? As I know you now, you are generous.

Isn't the single answer depending on the particular situation? Because as humans we are emotional and therefore in different moods. We sometimes act with a wide heart and sometimes with a narrow one, sometimes calm, sometimes excited, and so on.

Ultimately, systemic consensus is something completely new in our modern civilizations and has not yet been tested. So so far nobody can know what the results look like, it would be an open question. This is, where my excitement about it feeds from!

Maybe we forget that as a human being we often make better decisions if we don't feel restricted and suspicious. The ideology that I think we need is possible by emphasizing the appropriate narratives and writing: that there is not really much difference between "my interests and the interests of others".

Actually, this method aims to show the more authentic view of people if you don't vote by majority vote. It is easier to be satisfied with a vote if one knows that it was taken after the least possible pain/resistance than with a single preference that would inevitably lead to disappointees/losers.

Even if one believes that the loss of others means the gain for oneself, I would say that every human being basically does not want to have losers, because they make life difficult and in turn influence the system negatively.

For me personally, a systemic consensus choice would mean that I could learn to accept that the choice will turn out as it does.

04.09.2019 06:39
2

If you can exchange the cynical assessment for a construction of the world as you would like it to be, would you take another view?

Years ago I went through a whole bunch of classical Utopian literature. The concept was so appealing. But I always thought, not based on an understanding of human nature. You're right, experience has made me cynical...that is, realistic.

My children often correct me (and my husband does, too) when I meet someone for the first time. Invariably I attribute to them the best of motives. I see light. Good will. My family takes me aside and points out the reality of the situation to me. They all claim I live in a bubble. So I am inclined to see the positive.

But cold reflection instructs me that people really can be quite selfish and even predatory. I'm sorry. Utopia won't work, because a few predators will destroy it for the rest of us who naively insist on trusting.

However, I don't see your systemic approach as utopian. I think, if we all understand that we've had a voice weighed evenly, we will accept the outcome. If only you could persuade people to take the time to join in consensus decision making, it would work fine. Getting people to invest the time and energy in something new--a new way of proceeding--that's the hard part.

What an interesting brain you have, dear Erika :)

With great respect and affection,
Your friend, AG

(waiting for my VP to grow so I can continue to respond to comments and upvote them--such a weak, weak, VP)

05.09.2019 18:42
1

Thank you, my dear AG, I very much like your clear mind about distinguishing utopia from what is pragmatic and actually easy to apply. I like to answer you to what you said and I hope, you will bear with me and not get tired.

If you treat someone as a blank page, wish to see the good in him, and treat him as if he were honorable and sovereign, despite possible deceitful or dishonorable intentions, that person could become just that. What you call realistic is only one side of experience. The other - utopian - always contains the possibility of an unfinished future. None of us knows this possible future, because it also consists of the mental constructions and thus a will. The worst villain can find humility in this way by meeting someone who wishes to ignore the evil in him and instead experience his potential for compassion and reason.

I call your inclination to meet people openly at first a gift, not a weakness, but a strength. Why should it be the other way around? That doesn't mean you can't be critical.

What do you want to be treated for yourself? After what mistakes and wrongdoings you have made? After that, where you supposedly disappointed others? Is it not the case that you are pleased when you receive encouragement in your abilities instead of someone pointing to your small-minded or anxious qualities?

This is my greatest opponent: to let myself be taken in by what my fellow men say: "I can't do that". Or "the others cannot do that". I often let myself be led on this path and say: "But you can want to be able to do it". The answer is again: "I don't know how" and then I get bogged down in such conversations. Often without noticing that my conversation partner is not really interested in wanting to achieve something, but does not want to let go of his habit of feeling himself small and unworthy. Suffering and pain is a powerful companion. So powerful that we are reluctant to let go of the identification, to let ourselves be surrounded by it.

But there are ways to avoid it, aren't there? How important proposals are and when an ideology appears slowly or steadily in the consciousness of us humans, we cannot really see nor consistently judge. But we don't need it either. All the good things that people planted decades, centuries and millennia before us in the garden of mankind are today with us and among us.

I want to challenge you once again: trust is ... yes, you could call it naive. But is naivety a bad thing?

Trust is probably the strongest component in human coexistence. My mother, for example, was a bit naive in many ways and often trusted me and others blindly. As questionable as this may be in some cases, it was the best thing that could happen to me. It is this unneeded kind of trust that brings people together and makes them cooperative. A group that sees this unconditional trust in itself may be capable of many things.

Of course, people are selfish and predatory. How else would you know the opposite? I feel compassion for those who believe they have no choice but to kill and enrich themselves. They may be very poor and alone. Do you not think that those with the greatest material wealth have the most to lose? How hard it must be to carry the burden of power and money all the time. But when "from below" the reflection comes that one wants to be rich and powerful and it is worthwhile to go to the heaven of material and powerful fruits, no one really has to wonder that this is like a hundred percent confirmation. People very much confirm the riches they think they hate so much.

But that shouldn't make me (nor you) desperate. If it wasn't for the 3-5 percent (I make that number up) of odd minds and non main stream thinkers all the good we have today wouldn't be here.

At least, you give utopia a chance and I can see also your fascination about it.

Receive my trust in you <3
yours Erika

06.09.2019 08:05
2

Thank you for trusting me. I trust you--your intentions, your good will.

So much to think about, so many contradictions in my own thought. Cautious, and yet trusting. I think the caution comes from not wanting to be hurt (in the physical sense--there's experience there), and the trust comes from an absence of ego. So what if someone 'gets one up on me' in a social context? I don't care. I'm beyond worrying about saving face.

Expecting harm (being cautious)... that's so complicated. I'm working on it :)

What an interesting person you are. And very good for the heart (mine).

Your friend,
AG

06.09.2019 21:24
1

🌸 🌸 🌸 🌸

07.09.2019 10:07
2

Oh, and how would you like it if I changed the last proposal like that:
"For every downvote directed to a certain person, you have to give the same person an upvote in another place, where you feel a match." ? :D

04.09.2019 07:46
2

Hello Erika,
The discussion continues.

I'm afraid the behavior of Steemians does not give me heart. So much grabbing, vote hunting, Steem chasing. Of course there are wonderful people. That's why I'm here. People who warm my heart. But I'm afraid the predatory behavior does dominate.

Let's move to an island where only idealists are allowed :))

As for this proposal

"For every downvote directed to a certain person, you have to give the same person an upvote in another place, where you feel a match."

No. Some people don't ever put a lot of effort into their work. And they don't behave as though they are part of a community. No upvote for them. Save it for someone who contributes to the community.

I'm afraid I'm more cynical than you. So sorry!

I still think this is a worthy exercise and deserving of serious attention. Consensus building. How can that be wrong?

04.09.2019 16:32
2

I come from the corner from which I want to find a way to be in contact with people whose ostensible opinion I don't necessarily share. Because I think it's easy to like what I like. It's hard to like what I don't like (if that makes any sense:). I don't assume that many people - other than you - will get involved in my experiment. I sometimes publish topics that don't attract attention because I see the alternation between my blog topics as an experience of how I deal with going unnoticed. Especially in a matter that is close to my heart. Moreover, I am probably a hopeless optimist ... or at least have a tendency. LOL! Maybe others - my son, the next generation - will find the systemic consensus on this blog. Who knows?

Of those others who hunt STEEM, who seem strange or even unappealing to me, I only know the part they share with the world about the blogosphere. But there is, as I know, still something in the background that I don't see. You could call it "the good".

One of the most difficult exercises for me is to find some kind of interface with people I spontaneously dislike because of the content they spread. Granted, I don't succeed that often. My attempts often seem awkward to me and often the inner critic wins. But well, I practice.

You said that well!

Consensus building. How can that be wrong?

Bye, my dear.

04.09.2019 17:06
2

I feel the same. Can't please everyone. Can't try. Think about the individual. Each one a gem, treasured.

Thanks Friend.
Love, AG

04.09.2019 18:10
0

Note:

I added as a fifth proposal for the second part (distribution of payouts)

No 5. Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 50/50.

Please, be so kind and give me your vote for that, too. It was mentioned by two users which is a sign for me to include this into the list. Thank you!

07.09.2019 14:02
2

Ok. I''m on it. Sounds good!

07.09.2019 21:04
0

You are welcome :)

Here's my voting:

Down-votes - proposals

1: 10
2: 9
3: 5
4: 6
5: 0
6: 10

Distribution of pay-outs - proposals
1: 1
2: 2
3: 1
4: 0

04.09.2019 19:35
1

:)

Thank you! Now we are 3! Just needing at least ten more people! I really would like to make the evaluation with this.

05.09.2019 06:52
1

Note:

I added as a fifth proposal for the second part (distribution of payouts)

No 5. Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 50/50.

Please, be so kind and give me your vote for that, too. It was mentioned by two users which is a sign for me to include this into the list. Thank you!

07.09.2019 14:08
1

I updated my voting :)

09.09.2019 20:05
0

woaw ... as always :D

It's nearly 4am so i'm afraid i'll have to put the reply in double and read it again tomorrow. I think you would me a great anarchist my dear ... Ursula Le Guin herself would be proud. In the true sense of the word that is ...
Not the revolt against government but the lack of need to be governed ... I see you ran into ojou-sama as well , that last remark on twitter i read that said "just buy, dont ask questions" as well as the frequent use of normies in the context provided has more than once made me wonder if her highness grew up with seven maids and a butler and if she is really the right person to advocate this thing to the masses ... but #offtopic , sorry.
And that said, i think you might be overestimating the willingness of most people to have responsibility. It's a lot easier to do as you're told, that way it's never your fault.
You certainly are an asset to humanity (or maybe just a mutant like some others whose names we shan't mention hahah)
A small popup saying "your vote will be visible forever on the blockchain for everyone on the world to see" might not be that bad an idea but i'm afraid i'm gonna have to owe you the numbers until tomorrow. I'm certainly more than willing to try and give it a piece of mind but a bit o' sleep and two cups of coffee in my head seem to be a better environment than four in the morning. It's just i just opened @yapcat here to do the talking and prevent spillage from my always latent supreme ability at voicing popular opinion as well as making friends in high places from my mouth to my little "projects" id like to build here (at my own chaotic pace) and ofcourse your post caught me so i couldn't resist giving a small reply already (im at least half as good at yes-or-no answers as you are i think :D)

So ... if i dont give you the numbers tomorrow you can officially slap me and call me a ... whatever it is in german :p i'll keep the tab open b/c i dont trust my head made of cotton and gravel and my other supreme ability to be distracted by a ball of yarn ...

great stuff as alays @erh.germany

(platonic sense ofcourse ...)

06.09.2019 01:25
1

:) You always surprise me anew. I appreciate this quality with you. I stumbled a little when you described me as anarchistic and thought "I? LOL. I get many interesting names from people, mainly I am considered "naive". It's funny to get something like that said when you're almost fifty. But you hit the nail on the head with your statement that I see no need to be governed and therefore no need to govern others. For me there are no masses that I could overestimate, because every human being has the potential to be sovereign. I am told that the self-centredness lies in the nature of man, which I do not see in the very last consequence, or rather prefer another mental construction. I see the nature of man in reactions like two opposing football teams ending a game and half of the spectators being very depressed and sad while the other half seems happy and drunk on victory. But among the winners there are always people who look at the victory with a sad eye and wish there were no losers. Every loser I am responsible for will make my life sour. Pitying the loser is a really nasty experience.

Contrary to all convictions, human everyday life is filled with events that never only want "yes" or "no" answers. People make reasonable choices and - in given circumstances - always consider or at least try to consider a number of options. But those who let themselves be rushed, look at what others say, whether they like or dislike, will always have the impression that they themselves have no choice and are incapable or incompetent. Let's say that in the quiet attic or the unconscious feelings and reactions we are all not wrong at all. But as soon as we publicly say or do something, we become awkward, opportunistic or aggressive because we think we have to be that way. The mask of others makes us believe that it is real and so we put one on. How nice it is that there is carnival, isn't it?

So no, I don't overestimate the masses, I am convinced of the potential of the individual in this mass, which can always be awakened and encouraged by unusual experiences. Of course, if I am "the only one" who finds such, I have a hard time. But I am not unhappy, only sometimes terribly sad, that my fellow men let themselves be guided by their disappointments and their neediness. But since I am not a saint, I know that I too am led astray by these experiences, which are perceived as negative, and I want to look into it and let a garden grow out of my heart.

The thing is: I would like to be regarded as a human being in this way, that my reason, my resources can be tickled out. When I meet people who can do that, I am delighted. So I would also like to make this available. I realize that my impatience could ruin everything. That what I stand for could not find an echo in my private environment, in my work, or on this channel. But it will find an echo (and already has), I have not the slightest doubt. Only: to really want to experience the success of a thing at any price is already the branching off into the devil's chamber. The already "dead" "knew" that :)

Thanks for the inspiration. I looked up Ursula Le Guin and "ojou-sama" - never heard of and found myself in resonance.

Yes, my unknown friend, do the numbers, please. And I may never call you a bad German name :-DDDD

You made my day. You are one of the most interesting people here, I met. Let's see what that does to your ego, as you spoiled mine. HaHa!!!

06.09.2019 06:37
0

wow .... (and as it turns out there were even replies below 12 days old already , tsk ) you flatter me, miss . If having an opinion makes me all that then i'm not great but something must be wrong with the world in general :))

Often see misconceptions on anarchy (but also on other -isms) even by the intellectual elite revolving around that. If you were to read up on C4SS its mostly discussion on what is anarchy and how to ,
i mean , as if , of all things anarchy has rules to it ? Something about the need to measure i think, the need to box and define. To me i cant describe it any better than how i defined it in the last reply indeed.

Ursula le Guin has a bit of an extensive bibliography , but i could feed on all that as a kid (im not sure she wrote childs literature though but my mother just kept me brining every sci-fi and fantasy book from the library she could find as my hunger was never satisfied ... little did she know there's science in Fi and great filosophy and fantasy apparently ... maybe easier to understand for a kid since its all covert in very nice, intriguing stories
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/874602.Ursula_K_Le_Guin

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/23/ursula-k-le-guin-sci-fi-fantasy-author-dies-at-88

as for ojou-sama , it's a term that could describe respect for someone of high birth but also can be used in a sarcastic way for someone 'acting' the part ... in flemish it would translate to "walking next to your shoes" ... ?!? so no names need to be mentioned there , im long since not even paying attention.
We clearly can't all get along , as i have found several times, my reactions arent always this lengthy and certainly not always in the same tone and manner ... but then again, i see berniesanders here using plenty of cuss in reactions to steemit and high-powers and he still makes it to pensiff 's steemit news ... its all about the handshakes and the voteweight in some circles ... happy to see you got recognition for your article on steemstem too, i think you really deserve that (even if im sure it doesnt keep you awake if you dont get it because you do what you do and that is one of the main reasons why i keep coming back : free thinker with a supreme bonus of the subject and topic that's alway in my area of interest ... its a double whammy here for me @erh.germany Erika (just mention in case b/c its 15 days ago ...)
i've never been the greatest online socializer and i never will be although i used to be quite out-going in the actual great outdoors (but im not that anymore either)

And ...
I do believe there's potential in everyone , but not the will to be independent. And on top of that people like "the protectorate" as i call it here tend to know what's good for others as well. I dont know how they know but they seem to know (or at least think they do) , usually in a higher social position so that comes down to mental(peer?)pressure from above its not peer if theres a different level on the social ladder i guess (which shouldnt but in fact does exist)
I blame all that mostly on schools (maybe not the uni-level) because they basically teach behaviour over thinking, knowledge over understanding and not a state-backed school in the world does not have the approval of the state and will therefor be subject to the doctrine of that very state (its somewhat inevitable if you want recognition from the powers that be i guess)

No fear of ruining my ego , i think im more of an id-person anyway , quick on the draw sometimes and althought it's often mistaken i don't LOVE myself, i just dont hate myself and where others stop at pragmatic i make up my own version because its incomplete and i try to be 'pragmactical' but the fiery nature doesn't always make that possible and impulses can't always be controlled but

... sorry if it feels like breaking short but i should get some (and give it a ) rest ...

dont you write on medium or so ? i think your articles would fit in just fine there, definitely get some crowd too

( i just put up a new twitter , have already been locked down once, but thats just 280character things ofcourse : https://twitter.com/rudyardcatling )

but i already find now i do even less but talking and typing lol

anyways ... im sure i missed more than one reply from you if this is already 15 days and probably some others too :D i hope i can still catch up i dont know where time goes ... it certainly doesn't go my way

if you like Le Guin (my two other alltime favourite authors would be Jack Vance and Roger Zelazny btw ... i have no nobelwinners or 'classics' on the shelves, i dont even like Asimov so im basically a heretic .... whats new :p)

!!!!! ttyl stay safe

20.09.2019 21:05
1

Knowing what's good for others is a dangerous road. The political parties live off paternalism because they see it as meaningful to maintain a protectorate. Indeed, it seems, as you say. And yet living experience is something else. People unconsciously take an example from such prominent role models.

Quote:

"I consider a basic income morally reprehensible. The state would buy itself free from its responsibility to take care of the unemployed.

Detlev Scheele, Head of the Federal Employment Agency

Source: tagesspiegel.de, 07.05.2017

See, that's what I mean and what you mean, isn't it?

It is the politicians who depend themselves on wanting to grant protection and to have responsibility so that they feel a justification for their office. Who is the needier of the two? The unemployed or the politician?

I have often been unemployed. But nobody had to get me a job. I knew what I wanted or didn't want. Basically everyone knows that. To confirm each other in the roles, so that nobody is offended, ... well, you can do it differently.

But the protection of those who have no power is definitely necessary, only the one who sees himself as a protector needs a mandate from the one who seeks protection. This mandate must include the personal responsibility of the person seeking protection, otherwise the person taking it can always reject the responsibility if things go wrong and blame the protector. A ping-pong game in which such identities can be consolidated, isn't it?

LOL. I don't know. School is school. Anyone who is out of school can develop further and try out new perspectives despite common habits. After all, we are not enslaved.

To love or to hate oneself is not a general permanent condition, is it not? You are certainly full of self-love if you take the time for yourself, do something that prepares you for benevolence without being exaggerated. I think that most of all you are at peace with yourself when you wish other people wellbeing and think/feel the same inside. Free from envy, hatred and suffering.

where others stop at pragmatic i make up my own version because its incomplete and i try to be 'pragmatical' but the fiery nature doesn't always make that possible and impulses can't always be controlled

That can be regarded as "good enough". I am trying to be gentle to myself when I lost my temper. Not making a murder pit out of my heart. It happened and it will happen again.

Science Fiction! I definitely have a love for it, as well as for fantasy. You don't like Asimov? I've read something of his but I can't think of anything concrete.

I will hopefully find the time to take a closer look at your links.

Have you read Robert Pirsing's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? It's worth the time.

Bye bye, my friend.

Oh, I really like the expression "walking next to your shoes".

Hugs & Kisses!

Erika

21.09.2019 17:20
0

Note:

I added as a fifth proposal for the second part (distribution of payouts)

No 5. Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 50/50.

Please, be so kind and give me your vote for that, too. It was mentioned by two users which is a sign for me to include this into the list. Thank you!

07.09.2019 14:04
0

12 days ago omg ... euhm without checking i think i do remember answering that one @erh.germany , Erika, something along the lines of "it should be a personal choice" for big and little fish alike. That way everyone can show themselves lol, the whale who'd get $100 going 10% by getting $500 going 50 every time by choice will show a certain trait of character so i think that would be a zero (opposed, if i remember the scale correctly) didnt work on the consensus parser since either. It happens a lot once i grasp the idea lol, not to say that i wont ever finish it into a usable script but with me things are e.ta. nAn , i hope this still helps, if not for posting then for personal use of stats ... lagging behind on everything again. My well-chosen name and often going beyond just lapsus-linguae, which already had me in twitter jail once for not being too nice towards Donald Trump on a matter of golf leaves me without RC a lot too, in case you still get this ... thats a definite no, total resist. If you're into data gathering its better to leave choice open as much as possible anyway in order to profile and chart the 'global' attitude (i know i dont use the correct dictionary words always but language is derived from context, right, after all there's not a school in the world i have ever finished to the point of getting that piece of insignificant paper (to me) but i dont think that voids me of the right to opinion or understanding) and certainly not of the right to speak and think in brackets and passing 15 timelines in one sentence before i get back to the point after a cup of two of #offtopic ;-))

19.09.2019 21:02
1

The above comment of mine was just an addition I sent to everyone who participated in the experiment. :) So you cannot have already answered it because I added it after you gave your numbers on the existing proposals. But never mind. We may come back to this. I haven't made an evaluation yet, since I would like to have more participants. If not, than I may do the results with those who joined. No hurry.

21.09.2019 16:01
0

morning

gitchu the numbers right away, are you serious about the #devs thing because it wouldnt require rocket science as long as you can get people to adhere to a certain format (or a number of formats ...)

for instance if you were to take a look here :

https://tyrnannoght.000webhostapp.com/bloglog.php , then click "repliestab" , you can see a list of few of my accounts (with even people who have active voting at @goldmanmorgan listed in a different colour than those who dont)

so ...

between my first and second cup-a-joe :

https://tyrnannoght.000webhostapp.com/tyrsubtabs/rpls.php

very fast adaptation of the original so im not sure it will take replies to replies but that wouldnt even be the point and in order to parse properly and make SURE you would need people to adhere to a minimum agreed-on "syntax" there (or format) b/c computers dont decide, they follow orders , but steem-chain would make this not very hard actually

now as for the numbers :p

1

(Down-votes - proposals) <- easier if this werent here but no biggie
1:0
2:0
3:0 (can have remarks if whitespace between too even - id say 1 & 2 already make this unnecessary and if so simply even back to "downvotes cost resources would be damage control)
4:0
5:x (not sure what you mean here)
6:10 (thats karma, lol, buying off your sins by doing good doesnt make them right)

2

(its a bit hard with the overlapping and i could probably easy pick ONE from each that has my preference over all the others, give that one a zero and the rest a 10 but wouldnt be right because most are acceptable to downright good proposals)
1:2 (im fine with 50/50 as a standard but payout should start from the absolute minimum 0.001 possible, not from and exact 0.02)
2:0 (best option , more choice more better)
3:1 (good but less options)
4:10 (no, smallfry and fat fish are both considered humans, choice should be free, not dictated by government)

... for instance that could be a potentially parse-able syntax ... if you plan on doing this a lot im certainly willing to give it a try but no promises or deadlines hehehh

awesomeness as always ...

the #4in the second (for instance if you adhere to strict syntax lines would need to begin with the hash so hashes after char1 would not trigger a "list detected" something like that ... lol) that's about some kind of positive discrimination and regulation, i think if you start dividing its already wrong, that fat fish NEEDS to make the choice him/herself, being forced to do it will create a-versity

much to be said about every single one (and probably a lot more than i do right now but its a poll so i'll spare some energy for the rest of the day) and its also possible (for me) to pick simply one that surpasses the rest in each of both lists, hence my choice might seem a bit close to bi-polarity there :D

but well, thanks much again for a fabulous example of an-Erica-nism :p

06.09.2019 09:11
1

Thank you for your numbers!

For your question on the downvoting part at No 5:
it's the new mechanism after the recent HF. I copy steemitblog here:

.. Once you use up those 3 downvotes, if you continue to render downvotes, those will once again consume voting mana.

You said:

its a bit hard with the overlapping and i could probably easy pick ONE from each that has my preference over all the others, give that one a zero and the rest a 10 but wouldn't be right because most are acceptable to downright good proposals)

The principle of this voting method is not using preferences (which would be more like a majority principle in voting) but the least resistance you experience. Once your votes show a tendency to either 0s or 10s you should probably check once again if you followed the method. If you did, than that is your authentic voting :)

End of this part


So now you see me scratching my head, asking ?

Did you suggest to me that if the comments with the answers/numbers are made in a fixed defined form, you could program me an automatism that spits out the desired table at the end?

That would be great!

But I'm not sure if this was your offer?

Have mercy on me, I'm not that fit as far as the English language is concerned regarding your very casual use of it, I only speak High German. LOL.

For the rest of your comment I will come back later to you.

06.09.2019 16:30
0

o dear, 16 days ago heh, my follow-up seems to slow down instead of go faster, i didnt really make an offer but i kinda tried it out and yes its pretty much possible to do that

if you want and you see a use in it i can try and refine it. English has been a curse somewhat as i often find myself looking for flemish words because the english come first.

i think i sent you the link by now

https://tyrnannoght.000webhostapp.com/tyrsubtabs/rpls.php

, its very primitive ofcourse but if you scroll to the bottom of the page you can see how it could be done, you 'll just need delimiters and people to stick to those OR if, refined from the base script, a certain set of delimiters people CAN stick to, even possible (but preferably not) with remarks in between ... i think it would be great actually, certainly as an exercise but im not the most structured person so i'm not gonna say "okay you'll have it by tomorrow" lol b/c that wont be the case, i'll look into it and try to refine it further

all good, but the last month i have barely gotting anything done on any hobby projects , steemplayer (not mine) , my own game so its will be as time, chaos and clarity permits but a 'real' developer should be able to program that in about 30 minutes i think ...

i'll get back to you on that (hopefully not in 16 days from now lol)

@erh.germany

22.09.2019 13:12
1

just a quick answer. Tired, as I am I barley am able to write. I am on discord, you can find me under my username erh.germany#0661

Bye bye, my friend.

24.09.2019 19:09
0

I read through your original post and was going to add my voice (other things got in the way).

So NOW I will participate.

Before I give you my 'votes thingy', let me say I think the principal is an excellent one.
The biggest problem (not just on steemit), is the speed of decision making/commenting - in everything 'social platformy'.

The time element, and by extension reasonable measured decision making, has been reduced to virtually zero seconds of consideration. (quite intentionally, I think).

Anyways...

Down-votes - proposals

  1. 3
  2. 7
  3. 0
  4. 9
  5. 5
  6. 7

Distribution of pay-outs - proposals

  1. 3
  2. 2
  3. 6
  4. 8

I Hope that helps.
Great thinking!

06.09.2019 10:25
1

Thank you very much, @lucylin! Can I actually say Lucy? Pardon, (kidding) your username gets me irritated. :D Or do you have a surname you can tell here?

Yes, I like the principle a lot and would like to have experiments all over with different topics and different groups.

The biggest problem (not just on steemit), is the speed of decision making/commenting - in everything 'social platformy'.

Yes, I agree. I would like to reduce speed. Sometimes it makes sense to do that. I think people maybe would welcome some aid as I see and observe a lot of rush in friends or colleagues.

The time element, and by extension reasonable measured decision making, has been reduced to virtually zero seconds of consideration.

We maybe can bring that back by using the same technology to our advantage, can't we?

I get excited. Participants are increasing :D

06.09.2019 16:02
0

Thank you very much, @lucylin! Can I actually say Lucy? Pardon, (kidding) your username gets me irritated. :D Or do you have a surname you can tell here?

Call me anything you like, I don't mind.

Lucy Lin is my girlfriends name. (the English version, anyway)
(She doesn't irritate me at all!) lol.

I'll try to participate in anything you have going.
It needs changing, that's for sure.

You may be the pioneer of 'new ethics', on the internet!

07.09.2019 00:24
0

HaHa! I guess I understood the hint ... in relation to "new-...".

Well, the Internet is big and I certainly am not a pioneer. I decide, despite my uncertainty as to how you meant it concretely, to thank you for the flowers. :D

07.09.2019 08:52
0

I never meant anything more than I said, there is nothing to read into it.

What flowers? lol
(is that lost in translation? I dunno)

07.09.2019 09:02
0

You may be the pioneer of 'new ethics', on the internet!

Were that flowers or irony? I am not sure.

07.09.2019 09:47
0

oh!!!!!..... flowers, for sure!

07.09.2019 09:52
0

Than I gladly take them and say: Thank you! :)

07.09.2019 09:54
0

Note:

I added as a fifth proposal for the second part (distribution of payouts)

No 5. Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 50/50.

Please, be so kind and give me your vote for that, too. It was mentioned by two users which is a sign for me to include this into the list. Thank you!

07.09.2019 14:04
0

As promised, here is my participation:

The downvote part was not clear. When you mention that the user loses some fraction of his/her voting power, I assume you are talking about his/her downvoting power (that is different from the upvotig power). At least this is what I have assumed.

1 - 10

2 - 8

3 - 7

4 - 10

5 - 5

6 - 10

I am not very happy with the proposals. I would have preferred to read: every time a suer pushes the downvote button, he looses the corresponding part of his downvoting power.

Concerning the payout, what are you exactly talking about: is it the curator/author fraction or is it the SBD/SP distribution? Do you mind clarifying (then I will answer).

06.09.2019 14:16
1

Hi and many thanx that you took part, @lemouth!

To answer your questions:

For the downvote part: your assumption is correct.

While writing the proposals I was thinking of the old downvote mechanism and of the new one after HF. These two mechanisms I included.

From steemitblog I read:

you will be able to render a certain number of downvotes for free (i.e. without reducing your voting mana). The way this works is that the Steem blockchain protocol looks at 25% of your voting mana and calculates how many downvotes that would grant you. Under the current system, the moment you started downvoting your voting mana would go down. Under the proposed system, Steem would basically ignore those downvotes with respect to your voting mana.

... Once you use up those downvotes, if you continue to render downvotes, those will once again consume voting mana.

You said that you would have preferred another proposal in downvotes.

every time a suer pushes the downvote button, he looses the corresponding part of his downvoting power.

We still could include that in my draft as No. 7 and I could ask all so far participants to give a vote on this additional one of yours. Say "yes" if you would like me to do that. But I am not sure what you actually mean with the "corresponding part". So you would additionally insert a downvoting-power wheel in the same way as it is now - for example - displayed in steemworld.org with my Voting-Power but separate? Can you explain?

For the distribution of payouts:

Reward funding is being changed from the 75/25 split that currently exists, to a 50/50 split between author and curator.

I took what was posted on the steemitblog and added some more variations in splitting.

The discussions about reward curve and connected maths I would like to leave aside. I find it too complicated. My proposals aim more at a principle - but if you see a huge flaw, let me know. At least this experiment should have some authentic thoughts going on which have to do with the mechanics of this system.

Man, that got long. Sorry.

06.09.2019 15:53
0

In short, we have two independent manabars: upvote and downvote. This should be simple enough, and this is what we have now.

For the payout, the 75/25 was broken as it resulted in a behavior that was not healthy IMO. The 50/50 seems to cure it so so far, I am all for keeping the 50/50 (at least to a longer period to be able to see the outcome). Therefore, I vote 10 to each option :D

07.09.2019 13:01
0

Keep in mind that voting like you did for the second part reflects more of a preference vote. As the lowest number wins with this method, you will lose your votes when all of them are at a 10.

But to be fair and include also your proposal I made a comment to all so far participants where I was asking for their vote on a 50/50 payout. I edited my original article.

07.09.2019 14:08
0

Then I will vote 5-10-10-10-5 :)

07.09.2019 20:57
0

Thank you! :)

08.09.2019 16:14
0

Note:

I added as a fifth proposal for the second part (distribution of payouts)

No 5. Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 50/50.

Please, be so kind and give me your vote for that, too. It was mentioned by two users which is a sign for me to include this into the list. Thank you!

07.09.2019 14:04
0