I am still in search of that elusive 'Steemian Code of Conduct' and why we don't apply it more often when it comes to conflicts or disputes that often erupts in the otherwise civil and peaceful place where both creators and curators are rewarded for their hard work without the constant pressure of investors and bots making life appear similar to what it is in the outside world. In a perfect world they would be free of all these external influences, and that the intrinsic values of each post can be realized to its full value. But we don't live in a utopia and one thing I know is that the higher powers are leaving the community to sort out issues like this because it is the only sustainable and viable option.
Due to the gentle nudges from 
Now I have previously written a post about resolving disputes on steemit through arbitration, but I feel like that process might be best left for bigger and more serious cases where both #factcheck and authoritative figures are required to enforce decisions based on some principle of conduct on steemit:
Since this isn't necessarily a task that I can take on, I want to instead point out some case studies of disputes that I have seen on steemit and how I think they have been resolved and whether we can do better. I think this will serve to help people have a point of reference for general conduct in steemit, and perhaps lead to more productive and positive interactions.
Before I can go into any case studies, it is important to point the audience to two philosophies that I picked up in my extended dealings with the public as a Justice of Peace in Australia, an adjudicator on a civil & administration tribunal and just someone with no specific legal expertise but care enough about social justice and steemit to write something about this. If you have read the book Kicking the Dragon by 
These are two concepts that have been articulated in a much more eloquent and succinct manner than I can hope to achieve, so I am quoting some terms and references to help guide your thinking when reading the case studies. The first being the concept of reflective equilibrium. From Wikipedia:
Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments.
And that
If our judgments conflict in some way, we proceed by adjusting our various beliefs until they are in "equilibrium", which is to say that they are stable, not in conflict, and provide consistent practical guidance.
This is something that I hope to achieve from presenting these case studies, so that we can reach a state of coherence on what the general principles of the expected behaviour on steemit, and allow us to make future judgments and decisions that can cope with the changes that we may also need to deal with in the future.
The second concept I have borrowed from the book 'A Good Life: Morality from Birth to Death" by Mark Rowlands talking about what practical wisdom is (and the title for this post):
Practical wisdom involves not just the ability to get things right but also the ability to recognize when you have got them wrong, and, perhaps with the help of others, to think frankly, flexibly and intelligently about how to do better next time.
The author points out that
Practical wisdom cannot be attained through the ingestion of rules. Rather, it is something acquired only through living: through being exposed to situations and trying to work out what is the best thing to do.
Now I admit these are not the typical views that the legal professionals or even the general public may think about the law, because there always seems to be the need to be black & white about the application of the law and its rulings. But I am not naive enough to think that our legal systems or our laws & regulations to be perfect, or even consistent for that matter, so I do think a different approach is required to resolving our differences here on Steemit.
Therefore I think these two concepts best encapsulate the philosophy and approach that I think Steemit should strive for when it comes to conflict resolution. Sometimes I have seen this done well, and other times I feel like even open discussions have been to the detriment of the community as it appears to be contrary to the vision that most steemians want to strive for here on the platform. But applying the concept of reflective equilibrium with practical wisdom should help steer us towards somewhere that might be safe from the less predicable waters of flagging wars or other forms of vigilante inspired retribution.
But I hope that you can just enjoy the case studies I will present and that we can all learn from the experience. My next post on this topic will be on the first case study that I want to review, so stayed tuned if this has piqued your interest, or if any legal experts want to poke some holes or flaws in my argument about why this will not work on steemit. After all, I think no one really knows how things will work here, so I think the only improvement is going to come from doing and being constructively criticized.
Now if you still feel like there is a cause or need for an arbitrator or mediator (
I'm establishing a reputation as an impartial and neutral referee for disputes here on Steemit.
- I will act as an escrow of the stake being disputed and take 1% as my fee in SBD.
- Present your cases with supporting evidence, if #factcheck is required then additional costs apply per fact that you intend to check to support your claim.
- I will review and return the staked steem proportional to my ruling
- I will provide a post with my reasoning for the record under the tag #steemit-arbitration