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):
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.