esmevane, sorry

@scottjenson@social.coop This feels like something that could have a clear implementation in the current protocol, doesn’t it? It’s a really solid feature either way

@scottjenson@social.coop I saw this in the other thread. Oof!

@maniclucky It’s chafing to me, too. I’m not very good at it, I’m sure that’s kind of obvious at this point ;)

I just notice it a lot because, I guess, I wish I were better at it? Or better at being personable? But, it’s so expensive for me in terms of effort, it wears me out so fast.

@maniclucky The issue I think that you’re having here isn’t that you’re not making good points. Your points seem correct to me.

I think what’s going on is that you’re saying “there’s nuance”, and there clearly is, but I’m deliberately presenting a simple verbal model in order to be quick and to the point.

I do agree with you largely, but I think my point stands: two equal contributors to a system differentiate when just one contributor is friendlier to their host system. That becomes the edge.

@maniclucky Yes, it’s a contrived example. Its contrivance was to pose the point, which is:

Given two system components of comparable value, but different system impact, one still differentiates with regards to the surrounding system.

Also, given that the system itself is the body of recognition, the component with greater system impact is not only leveraged better, but also better positioned for being noticed doing it.

Also, a system can’t see self-isolated participants. Not respectfully.

@clearedtoland @fossilesque It makes perfect sense if you consider it. Imagine a closed system with two top performing components, where every other component is contributing to the system’s overall success. If one of these two top performers is able to connect and leverage all the other system components to amplify their work, but the other works in isolation, which is really producing more successful output when you measure the total system?