Some reflections about Punishment. Is it a game?
I would say that Hive is dominated by a relevant number of online gamers.
According to my subjective observation, they form the main group on this platform. They were probably the first to discover crypto platforms after those who understood the technology behind it and offered the space to get on a good financial footing play-wise.
My son is a classic online gamer. His gamer world consists of opponents to defeat. The levels always follow the same pattern. First the small ones, then the big ones and finally the boss enemy.
In the real world, my son surprised me at an early age by saying that he sees "punishment" as a legitimate means of "bettering" himself and others.
My interpretation of it all is that street fighting and the law of the strongest has been transferred to the virtual world. Bloody noses, broken ribs and so on no longer occur, of course; there is no need to suffer physically for defeats suffered. Since these physical fights are not fought out in real life - are even very much frowned upon - the young men (or even women) look for their opponents in online games. They play either alone or in teams.
In the game world, there must be the good guys and the bad guys,
otherwise such a game makes no sense at all and is no fun. Against what, if not against "the others", are you supposed to fight?
Of course, the non-classical online gamers - the intellectuals - also fight with each other.
However, their set of rules is different.
Simple punishment mechanisms seem to be rejected at first, one defends oneself quite eloquently against instinct-driven and "simple" rules. The weapons that are publicly offered on the shelf is ignored by the intellectual mind, it is considered backward-looking and brutal or not charming.
While those who like to pick the strongest from the arsenal of weapons actually just laugh about it. According to the motto:
How stupid must someone be not to use the means offered and instead of fighting a proper battle, where the rules are perfectly clear, to want to fight with words?
Dealing with words and arguments requires not only time but also a common language. A level of understanding where the same rules apply. There are therefore worlds between the classic intellectual and the classic online gamer. These worlds can only be overcome if the camps are changed and a common rule is accepted.
In my training, I learned that someone who wants to advise another well learns the ability to use the language of the other, i.e. to get on the same communicative level. But if I remain indifferent to the other person's habit of expression, I will not achieve that he accepts me as a worthy interlocutor.
But this applies to both directions: The intellectual labours in vain with long argumentations and the player, for his part, does not see that arguing can be as much fun as pressing buttons and letting the weapons speak.
These two can only spoil each other's fun.
No pot of gold for the rough-necks
Of course, offline socialisation has already done its bit. Today's primary school pupils are no longer allowed to fight in schoolyards. Not only is fighting seen as something profoundly bad, effective antidotes to the scuffling schoolboy are being created, such as "dispute mediator training" in schools. My son did one himself after he failed to make a good name for himself as a roughneck in primary and two secondary school years. Since rowdies can no longer win a pot of gold in the real schoolyard, they move to wherever that still seems possible.
So the young people are successfully socialised in physical reality and their desire for adventure and heartbeat is served in virtual reality. I do not share the great concern that online games lead to more violence in physical reality. On the contrary, I suspect that the hours of gameplay and strenuous concentration exercises tend to turn them into stay-at-homes and comfortable citizens.
No gold for snowflakes
From a player's point of view, you either beat an opponent or you lose. In this respect, there is little ambiguity here and the division of the world into poles makes it easier to be a player and to accept the rules. If you die in battle or hinder rather than support your team, you lose. There is a strong "us" against "them".
Someone who sees these polarities as too reductive and wants to do something about it does not see that he will have no chance of success unless he also adopts a player mentality. He cannot have the same identity in the same space with someone who is only playing.
But the very interesting question for me is: doesn't everyone play in the end?
My criticism of intellectual players (I myself tend to intellectualism) is that they use many words for one and the same thing: that you belong to the good guys. Where I say this here, it is of course only briefly formulated and therefore a player's statement. Overall, however, this is a longer text and therefore intellectual.
On the other hand - where the scientists or those who deal with science or even have a real academic profession in their offline life or have a technical academic background come together, it does not necessarily need great voting power of individuals who go around and punish with downvotes. After all, people just turn up their noses at this primitive way of playing. Forming their own circles. Usually those worlds run unattached to each other (gamers and scientists).
It can be commonly argued that in the real world, academics are far better organised and positioned than ordinary people from the street (I wonder how many are actually left?). They have both more influence and power in political decisions, etc.
While there does seem to be an intellectual "elite" on Hive,
at the same time there seems to me to be a blending and clear identities are much harder to discern.
Whereas I would think that hypocrisy is not well-liked by anyone, one actually recognises one's own hypocrisy the least.
No one can stand hypocrisy. No matter whether he plays on the intellectual side or belongs to the gamer squad.
In my observation, however, both camps make use of hypocrisy. It is often claimed that one's own actions are "for the good of all", that one is making an "honest effort to attract new members", that one wants to "help others".
Admitting that it is not about others, or even freshly declaring that joining Hive is merely for one's own benefit, pleasure and vanity, seems to be taboo.
Yet that is precisely the case.
I blog for my own pleasure, first of all I want to arouse enough interest myself in topics that interest me the most. And why not? What about you?
Personally, I don't bother to bring new people here, I really use it as my morning "I'll read the latest" online ritual. When people ask me what I do online, I tell them. That shall be marketing enough. If they cannot see the "benefit" on their own, they are simply not interested in it. Never have I promoted FB, when I witnessed the beginning of it, or youtube. I joined it for the sheer fun of having a new play ground online. (I meanwhile abandoned FB = no more fun).
The thing is, the more people enjoy what they're doing, the more new "users" will happen on its own anyway.
Wherever entertainment is perceived positively or sensationalism is satisfied, people come in droves all by themselves anyway.
What keeps them away is probably that the younger generation is not yet there in masses and that the current ones who are not yet ready basically fail before the technical hurdles to get an account on Hive.
I don't exhaust myself from the effort to constantly wax lyrical in marketing terms about "how much I've contributed to growth", when it will take care of itself.
Anyway, I suspect that the big gaming platforms are or will introduce their own cryptocurrencies and use blockchain technology to do so. I don't know enough about it.
But what I learned in life is that sometimes I just play by the rule of someone else in order to earn respect. A friendship was ended by me actively.
Not because I myself would have felt this to be completely necessary or even right. But because my friend speaks another language. She is a person who thinks punishment is appropriate and only disrespects me for the very reason that I think punishment is stupid and counterproductive. I finally, after my penny dropped, responded in her language and no longer in mine: I told her officially and clearly that she is not my friend.
To my first surprise, she responded promptly and clearly, as if she had been waiting for me to make a strong statement.
The insults she had previously directed at me were initially a reason for me to engage in an intellectual exchange with her. In other words, to come to an amicable agreement with her.
With time, however, I realized that she wanted to follow clear rules. So I gave her what she was capable of taking: to punish her for having behaved disrespectfully toward me.
The "punishment" involved telling her that our friendship was over. I downvoted her, if you will, and she readily accepted that. In this way the "punishment" was transformed immediately into "non punishment".
I, on the other hand, did not and still do not accept her initial "downvote" for me personally, but can respect it for her. Punishment is not an improvement tool for me but worsens my playing ability. Punishment causes my stubbornness and rejection. Therefore, from my point of view, the acceptance of punishment can only be done playfully, but not when it becomes super serious.
From my point of view, the worst punishment is not being allowed to play anymore, not death.
But to make the distinction where it is a game and where it is serious is in my eyes quite a difficult matter.
So I can find something to like about this process overall, while I don't particularly appreciate or accept the act of punishment itself.
If I met her on the street, I wouldn't hold a grudge, I would talk to her and why wouldn't I? After all, things are settled between us and we no longer need to pretend friendship, instead we can actually be friendly to each other after the breakup of our relationship.
Peace can now be practiced, after all.