As someone who is still relatively new to Steemit and still enjoying both the struggle to find my niche here as well as the generous guidance and support of so many lovely people, I want to provide a fresh perspective on something that I feel very strongly about - the way we resolve (or don't resolve) conflicts on Steemit.
I believe that a health community (this applies to relationships as well) needs the ability to deal with conflicts (since we are not a utopia) and resolve them in a manner that fits in with the general ideals of the said community. I guess I haven't seen anything in the way of a community vision or manifesto, but I also feel strongly enough about this that I wrote my own manifesto for steemit:
Okay, so I feel very strongly about many different issues here on steemit, but to me the opposite of love is indifference, and I think to let a lot of recent events slide by without making some contribution to the issue would be to show indifference, and I care too much about the potential and future of this platform to do that.
My initial involvement with the people on #bisteemit has taught me the value and danger of perception without information and data to support claims, and I wrote about how a #factcheck service could help with some of the conflicts we have had concerning suspicions of malicious or dubious behaviour on steemit. The intent is to promote transparency and accuracy of information so as to avoid two different parties making claims based on their views that could be biased due to their status or reputation (or voting power).
But of course this doesn't necessarily lead to a resolution of the conflict or dispute, because some of the difference in opinion is not contentious around the facts, but rather the interpretation or understanding about certain 'principles'. And a recent post concerning how people publish content on the platform would fall into this category:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@thewritersblock/war-on-fiction
I think there is some consensus among the more senior and experienced users on this platform that it is up to the community to establish and uphold the ideals and principles that we want to work towards. Perhaps when a blockchain application for dispute resolution like Jury.Online (https://steemit.com/@jury.online) is well established and accepted then we might have a system/process in place, but in the mean time I would like to propose something that helps us to manage these interactions on steemit better (than we are at the moment).
I don't claim to be someone who is an experienced legal professional, but as a Justice of Peace (a volunteer position similar to public notary but with much less power) that has also spent time in the tribunals both as a public citizen and decision maker, I do have a lot of dealings with people from both sides of the legal system, and I think the biggest problem with tribunals is that people generally come in having been ordered to undergo mediation without being able to reach an agreement. This means that people are setting themselves up to either win or lose (kind of like raising and then going all in, like in a game of poker) and the people making a decision or delivering a verdict is basically telling someone that they are right, and then telling the other person that they are wrong. I don't think this is a fair way to deal with most disputes because many of the difficult cases don't have a person who is clearly in the right/wrong, otherwise cases should be very straightforward (and maybe bots should adjudicate then...).
Can we do better (or try to be more civilized) in steemit?
Let me point out some of the shortcomings first (other than having no established/recognized process or system):
- There is no recognized principle or general rules backed by respected and unbiased individuals, so there is generally very little ground on which people can make a case for their views. We see this often in the way people upvote, comment or flag posts that do not fit with our own views, or at least our own interpretation of the views that we support on steemit.
- Most of the debates/arguments are carried out in the comments section (or maybe Discord or steemit.chat) and therefore difficult to follow or make sense of because it is scattered in the various threads.
- There is no authority that can carry out the decisions in the event that both parties are unable to reach an agreement.
How would we deal with each of these issues:
- We should let each party clearly state their point of view and why they believe this aligns with the visions or ideals of the steemit community.
- We should move these debates into an area that doesn't interfere with the rest of the activities on the post itself.
- We should seek some support from steemit inc or the higher powers to make some decisions once a decision has been reached.
This is a community where if all of us tries to do the right thing by each other than we all benefit more than the time and effort that we put into each post, because it has the support from the entire community. Conversely, if we don't try to do the right thing by each other than everyone suffers as a result (or at least the steem price don't increase as much as we would like). I think it is time the investors work more closely with the creators, and that an independent body (from within the community) is created to deal with these issues in a simple and effective way.
As a proof of concept, suppose someone does something on steemit (e.g. flags a post for no clear or stated reason):
- The user who wishes to raise a dispute for arbitration (because they believe there is no cause for the post being flagged) can add a #arbitration tag (or something similar) to stop all existing posts and comments on that incident.
- Next, a post is created where both parties are invited to comment on their claim and why it is valid so it stays outside the main post. In this claim they will also propose two items of action that they want carried out.
- Each party can then invite a limited number of users to comment on the arguments
- This arbitration post will have a specific tag where only people who have been invited can comment, while the rest of the people can only view the content but not comment. This allows transparency of the process without all the frivolous and unnecessary (and often inflammatory) comments added to the discussion.
- A panel of users (of different reputations and voting powers) are selected to review the case and look at the arguments and decide which of the proposed items of action from each party should be carried out. They will make their posts and the majority decision from the panel will be carried out with no further appeals allowed.
- The decisions made will go towards creating a code of practice or manifesto that can be reviewed and discussed (and changed).
I think this proposal is far from perfect, but I don't really enjoy reading about the conflicts that are happening without being able to help contribute towards a viable solution. I hope this can be the first step in the process.