Oh yes for sure if its a wide spread systematic issue i can totally agree things should be changed but this school yard who picks on who thing i dont see the point of making a fuss about
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Oh yes for sure if its a wide spread systematic issue i can totally agree things should be changed but this school yard who picks on who thing i dont see the point of making a fuss about
That I agree to. Flagging means "I think you should get less rewards" - and it's for each of us to decide why.I'm against "counter flagging" - but telling people about what happened, that is reasonable.
I never flag without giving my reason! I think it should be common courtesy! Perhaps a prompt when you downvote to give a reason or select from a list of popular reasons may help
Hi, @chekohler, your answer gave me a funny thought:
This is a nice paradox: having the courtesy to explain to someone why they have been flagged. To use an analogy in the physical encounter, it would be like punching someone unexpectedly in the stomach. Then you would bow politely and say gently, "I punched you in the stomach because I don't support your action."
The other person who has just been punched answers without resentment: "Thank you. I needed that."
In so far as both acknowledge the premise that one should express one's disagreement to someone with a measure which, precisely because it is considered painful, should have its effectiveness, everything is fine, isn't it?
An even more beautiful paradox would be to ask in advance whether the person I am about to downvote has the same premise? If he answers "yes", then my intention to flag him would meet with no resistance. The complete agreement to be flagged would make itself superfluous in this way, wouldn't it?
.....
Late thank you for dropping by @erh.germany and your comment.
Somehow I didn't notice your comment until just now.
Isn't better to give people explanation or not to give one?
Cheers, Piotr
I just was sneaking in as I did not want to engage too much in the debate.
I give you a reply I started later on this comment of mine, in exchange with logiczombie on his blog; especially on the given example you picked out.
Maybe this answers your question? - Here is the thread:
https://steemit.com/ethics/@logiczombie/q4z1zt
Greetings :)
It's me again @erh.germany
I just realized that I never actually thanked you for your comment. Big thx.
ps.
I would need to ask you for little favour. Recently I've decided to join small contest called "Community of the week" and I desribed our project.hope hive/community. Would you mind helping me out and RESTEEM this post - just to get some extra exposure? Your valuable comment would be also appreciated.
Link to my post: on steemit or on steempeak
Thanks :)
Yours, Piotr
It's a simple question.
(IFF) you don't have a reason for your action (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
(IFF) you claim to have a reason but refuse to reveal it, claiming it is secret, or unimportant, or "just too complicated to explain" (THEN) your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
By that logic no one would flag anyone becAuse everyone would claim innocense and nothing would get done! You’re basing your assumption on the ideal that we are all going to be blatently honest and fourthright which if we were would eliminate flags all together becAuse we all agree on the same set of rules
They ability to disagree using your stake is important or even more important than agreeing with your stake since you can flow capital into constructive action and away from destructive action
Oh, I wasn't assuming but only felt to speak about a paradox. I am not opinionating.
Lol my bad for the misunderstanding and yes your paradox illustration us funny I do admit that
:))