There seems to be a consensus among the witnesses that any criticism in the form of a post by a blogger referring to what they see as bad actors and using terms such as pest, parasite, greedy, criminal, duplicitous, etc., are unwelcome to be heard and they either vote such articles down themselves or condone others doing so.
No matter how much factual information the article may contain, it disqualifies itself by containing name-calling.
I observe that criticism, where it is formulated as such, without insulting or denigrating, and the formulator is someone who is either a whale himself or an established blogger with some stake, tends not to be downvoted.
Criticism where it directly attacks actors and makes criminal intent or arbitrariness the strong subject and it comes from a small fish is more likely to be downvoted.
While the whales can use a caustic tone or schoolmaster, the small fish cannot afford to do so because they lose out, since there is no authority to which they can turn.
Since such an authority does not exist (there is no consensus to impose self-regulation on the witnesses) this non-existence of an address gets out of hand in the fact that there is outrage. Which is expressed in articles similar to the one here under which we are commenting.
I would beg to differ. A judge is needed since it can be that in the investigation of a case of suspected abuse of power (stake) there can be conflict within the partaking witness or wale himself and he cannot be objective towards his own interests if they are conflicting him. Often in such a way that it does not even becomes conscious. But before that a power abuser needs to come to a hearing (now, what if he just won't and don't?)
You cannot follow a protocol and be attacker, defender and judge in the same person. You therefore need - once you have reached a consensus as witnesses - an independent body to stand by as arbitrators when cases of abuse of power are brought to their attention. To do this, they must be found, i.e. they must have an address.
I do not see this form of consensus coming.
Your suggestion of punishment or the imposition of impressive financial penalties already exists on the Chain, but "the people" and also the participants themselves are very divided on this.
Ultimately, there seems to be no will to work properly here.
Then you can also start to take the whole thing from the funny side, at least I tell myself in doing so would be better for me.
P.S. The problem with your approach - as I see it - is that you yourself are not seen as a rational actor, because you hurl insults and the intention behind them is not clear if people do not "know" you or let themselves be unsettled by you and refuse to get to know you by argument. On the surface, you seem like an angry, lashing out actor who is being accused of irrationality for that very reason.
Are you saying it doesn't matter if you approach someone rationally or (seemingly) irrationally if he himself is not rational and no matter what you say, it doesn't hit home anyways? So, you can as well cause them pain? ...
Hm ... I am thinking about my own encounters where I thought I argued from a rational point of view and received an irrational response. The way I inwardly dealt with it was that the response might be senseless because the other one doesn't like to give in. But my message nevertheless might stuck and being accepted without the other one letting me know.
Where is this to be found?
Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification.
Yes indeed, you don't need to call it a crime and I got confused by the constant chanting down of terms like "abuse" and "rape of the reward pool".
It is true what you say that a rational person need not and does not feel provoked by insults, but since it does happen and rational responses are exceedingly hard to find, the irrational dominates. You have to be very solid in your existence and not mind receiving caustic attributions. To simply put them to one side and look at the facts requires a great deal of composure.
Well, you have your own way of dealing with it and I don't judge you for that. Everyone plays some role in the spheres they move in and I wouldn't know how to assess that in totality. As a rule, I try to work out my own impulses more with myself in silence or publish articles that cannot be forced into a camp in terms of content. I don't care about expressing insults, rather I still have to learn how to deal with them myself and to understand every insult as a chance for my own maturing process. Nothing less is what you expect, is it not.
I understand that you don't feel insulted when someone calls you names? I would call that "one in a million" - it never occurs that you have sensations of revenge or other so called sinful impulses?
The anger you evoke, yes, that is an interesting approach and if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your action is necessary so that it is clear what is hiding under a mask of righteousness. You have chosen the most difficult of roles. I myself do not do that. I would perhaps do it if I felt mature and stable to do so, and I am not. ... Not really sure about that.
I observed that. Flashing out validity is something to go for, yes.
I first disliked your aggressiveness and was hit by the attributes you gave me in our very first encounters. Then I went to your comment section and saw you talking to practicalthought and others and changed my mind about you. I am not saying though that I see you as perfect or always correct in what you express. But I learned something about directness.