Rules.
I have nothing against rules. Let's say that much.
On the other hand, I am not someone who adheres to them slavishly, although I do follow them most of the time in my life. If I were to draw up a ratio that summarises my life, I would think that I am 90 per cent rule-abiding and 10 per cent rule-breaking. This figure varies and varied at different times and life-circumstances. But don't take them as sealed in stone.
I don't have any gross, violent infringements to report, but I would also say that this can be seen differently subjectively.
I assume that most people behave like me. No one is a particularly glaring example in all areas of their life, at most in a few where they are particularly sensitive about some rules.
Usually I avoid places and situations where I would have to break the rules because I could not reconcile keeping them with my conscience. I think that is also quite common. Not all rules in every place have to make sense or have to be good for me. There are rules that are so absurd that I can't even respect them.
People's outrage at rule-breakers seems not because the individual they observe doing so is doing so, it is rather the feared future in which others might take a "bad" example from them.
I consider this the weakest of all arguments. Because, firstly, it does not happen. A rule-breaker is not imitated by the majority because breaking rules is risky, since the reaction of the environment is uncertain. Unquestionably, the individual thereby puts himself on a slippery slope, consciously or unconsciously, by disregarding a common rule.
"If everyone did that!" is not only a weak argument, but a completely unproven one that is not close to reality.
Without bothering with any statistics, we can assume with a high degree of probability that it is a minority that breaks rules (in terms of average peoples).
Moreover, it can be observed that it is another minority that is disproportionately annoyed with the rule-breaker, where basically no harm has been done because, as in this case, one has merely been tagged by name. At most, this can be seen as a form of bad taste or something that is perceived as impersonal.
Of course, if this action were to immediately find imitators, the matter is worth further illumination.
So a few imitators might be enough to stir up the (minor/major?) hive community, no? But even then, you can count on it, the reaction of the many (aware of a topic) would be on its heels. For it is in the nature of this thing, as now proven, that the many tagged will have a reaction, no?
So individuals who address the many will always get a strong reaction. Nowhere else in offline life do you have such a chance of both putting your foot in your mouth and getting other, variable reactions. On the whole: you get noticed.
Those you welcome, those you find unpleasant and everything in between and beyond. The difference in reactions is something I value positively. There is not ONE uniform way of dealing with attracting attention, but different forms of reaction.
Therefore, for me personally, there is no reason for the originator of the post to apologise, because from my point of view he has done the community a great favour: he has shown that there is a differentiated view on every thing. No matter what one's personal opinion of the action is, it shows that everyone who has been reading along will become aware of whether they themselves would perform a similar action or whether it would be better not to.
As could be read in some comments, the view is that extremely attention-grabbing disputes are still exceptions and minorities and that the majority simply abide by the rulebook. Yes, that many don't even realise that there's a big fuss going on elsewhere.
I myself would not have dared to do so, nor would I consider it necessary, but it is not as if I felt obliged to impose my view on everyone else. I am one among many, and because that is so, it is exactly right that I alone should not determine what conformity should be.
By this I do not mean that the causer himself should not apologise, for he is not me. Since he is not me and I am not him, I can confidently take my position without attacking his. He got his learning out of this and apparently that was the deeper intention, which was not necessarily crystal clear in the act of doing it.
I therefore welcome this form of rule-breaking as it puts the common saying "exceptions prove the rule" into perspective.
We envy those who allow themselves an exception their willingness to take risks, or we smile at their naivety, depending on how we perceive the person (someone who does not take a risk or does not perceive it as risky in breaking the rules might be seen differently).
Those who are not interested in judgement, but also in what this case triggers in them or contains as a learning element, can ask themselves why it upsets them that someone allows themselves to do something so brazen.
Wasn't it very interesting to read all the comments?
Also, some people straightened some things out there and took up the opportunity to do so as they probably wouldn't have met themselves in this kind of atmosphere.
I am interested in the extreme, that which is conspicuous because it is not pleasing, that which does not fit into the picture. Probably for the reason that I have my own tendencies to wriggle out of the corset of existing rules from time to time. Isn't that human?
Because let's imagine the - completely unreal - situation that everyone always adheres strictly to the rules, what would happen then?
Apart from the fact that a set of rules is always open to interpretation, what would happen?
Hard to imagine, isn't it?
Apart from the fact that rules always leave space for interpretation, it's a mere theoretical scenario.
Now, let's talk about another case of rule-breaking: "Bad mouthing"
There are some blogs which post mostly about the issues of the Hive-chain.
For the marketers and traders amongst us who take their business really seriously and intend to make a living from it, that's not just a person writing about his opinions but for them he is someone bad-mouthing their source of income.
What they forget or falsely estimate is, that not all participants of the blockchain are here for the money, even though one might assume that.
In this particular case it seems that the blogger has quite a big readership who enjoy what he publishes.
Another reason why people blog is to be heard and to receive comments on their postings as well as explore other bloggers and their comment sections. They would like to engage and to have a voice and receiving Hive Dollars is not their first priority. I don't know the numbers and it's impossible to put that into reliable data. But I am long enough part of this scene to let my observations and interactions count.
In fact, bad mouthing or critisizing the features, behaviors and happenings of the scene, is as neccessary as pointing out the positive aspects of this sphere. You can't find it all in ONE particular blogger. Everyone has his tendencies, strengths and weaknesses and expecting it otherwise would be illusionary.
People can be really a pain but who says that the pain is their fault? With most people you can talk reasonably IF you want. In trying to have a reasonable dialogue you'll realize if that is possible with this particular person or if it's not. That does not mean that its impossible for others.
Do I say it's wrong that a bad mouthing person is downvoted from those who take this platform truly seriously as a source of their income and are therefor dependent on its smooth function and "getting new users" here? From my perspective it's wrong and I personally would not downvote someone for reasons of disagreement. Because I am not the one who determines how this platform is being seen and used. I use it how I see it fits me but I am not giving someone a punishment for not doing so.
Actually, I find it weak to put all my hopes and fears into something which I found as a good source of income and react anxiously or angry when someone comes along who seems not to take this thing seriously enough.
When I stretch the perspective, the fights seem to happen between people who are anyways better off when it comes to the degree of oppression and despair in their locations/nations. For instance, when you live in Venezuela and you are facing an actual intensive inflation of your currency, you truly might seek for alternatives to secure your sources of income through a blockchain like Hive. I don't know.
Again, the fight about the reward pool might be the same as I mentioned in the beginning. That an exceptional behavior - breaking rules - might be seen as something people will imitate in the future and that becoming angry or aggressive about it, serves as a preventive reaction for that happening (fearing inflation, becoming poor etc.).
The fear of not having enough sources of income is real for many people even though and despite the fact that there is no actual intensive inflation or whatever disaster imagined but could happen.
I am not saying that this shall bee seen otherwise and that prevention is a bad thing per se. For the single human it is reasonable and for his or her personal circumstances it makes always sense. But I am not in this state of mind or in a position myself, so I am taking the liberty to act and react differently.
My main message here probably is that I don't opt so much for prevention and security but for acting when things happen in real life. I am more of someone who waits and sees. Often enough it turns out that the doom and gloom does not happen.
But, what I also think is that the downvoter and the one being downvoted have more in common than it seems. I mean, how can you put so much effort into something you don't care for? Badmouthing something, for me, it's a sign of wanting to make a difference, of wanting to throw in your perspective, your influence and voice.
But, it may be not so much effort as it seems, right? People perceive critique as something easily done. So it's also actually seen as low effort when you don't offer an alternative or solution at the same time.
Am I to judge that? Hardly. I see that people find each other. One finds ones enemies in the same way as one finds his friends. That this is not always easy to distinguish, is probably another topic.
It comes down, in the end, to how much you trust people. I have faith in humanity. Underneath their friendly, happy, cheerful, sane masks is a hollow, irresponsible, anxious, authority-worshipping and lonely child. Underneath that is a decent, loving, discerning and dignified human being which, through insane upbringing, schooling and work and through professions usurping his ability to heal, educate, entertain and feed himself, has been suppressed and denied. Give humans real freedom, in the right way, and they eventually become real humans.
Darren Allen:
https://expressiveegg.org/2017/04/14/the-enemy-of-health/
I have generally faith in humans, if there is enough freedom for expressing and deciding for oneself. Have I ever tasted "real freedom"? I guess, not in general, but in particular. In times of joy, where I found inspiration and a form of self meaning. Do I have faith in governments of a central nature? I'd say, I had it but in the course of the last 1,5 years I lost it. Maybe it began even before that time. Leading a conformist life does not provide for the time to contemplate or educate oneself in depth and length. It's the non-conformist who does so, right? Unfortunately he is often seen as an extremist, but I would say that does not fit. Is it extreme to question regulations?
I would think that those who lead a non-conformist existence are often envied by others precisely for that. It is the envy of not being able to do the same. Envy is a vice, I don't think much of being envious, it only brings out the worst in me. Envious people forget that such a life is a balancing act, that it has a price. One makes oneself vulnerable, unpopular and it quite often leads to feeling lonely.
But since I reject this pigeonholing and absolute thinking, because it limits not only myself but also my perception of my fellow human beings, I cannot end without emphasising that in each of us there are multiple voices and personalities that permanently contradict each other.
Just for interested people. Read more of Darren Allen here:
https://expressiveegg.org/2017/05/24/some-offensive-thoughts/
https://expressiveegg.org/2017/05/05/egotism-institution-monomind/
Picture source:
Von Wolf Traut - http://www.zeno.org - Zenodot Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Holzschnitt, 15,1 × 19,3 cm, Sammlung: Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen., Gemeinfrei, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10667640