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?
It would appeal to 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 would probably be impressed. 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
- 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.
- 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?"
- In case, someone pushes the down vote-button, he loses a significant part of his voting-power
- In case, someone pushes the down vote-button, there should be no monetary or power consequences whatsoever.
- In case, someone pushes the down vote-button more than 3 times, he is going to lose part of his voting power
- 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 take place.
- Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 75/25.
- 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
- 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
- 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)
- Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 50/50.
Exception 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 so 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 username erh.germany
#0661.
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
#5 = 1
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
P.S. Oh, and a question: Is No 2 from Question two giving you much pain when you think about it? Do you have a great resistance because you don't like the proposal itself or because you think that people would do behave as you think they would?
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
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.
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)
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
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
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
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?
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!
Bye, my dear.
edit: And ... oh, what I often forget: It already is just fine that you get acquainted with this method. You are as important as the whole world or a million readers. <3
I feel the same. Can't please everyone. Can't try. Think about the individual. Each one a gem, treasured.
Thanks Friend.
Love, AG
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!
Ok. I''m on it. Sounds good!
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
5: 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!
I updated my voting :)
:)
Thank you! Now we are 3! Just needing at least ten more people! I really would like to make the evaluation with this.
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).
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!
:) 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!!!
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!
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.