Consensual aggression sounds like an oxymoron but I get your point. Flags are a necessary part of Steem.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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...
Words mean things. If you control the definition of words, you control the narrative. Hijack as many words as you can. Stockpile them.
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).