I enjoyed reading all of that. Thank you. Maybe it's the nature of this thread, and it being "meta" but - well I'll just say it; there's a higher quality of com

I enjoyed reading all of that. Thank you. Maybe it's the nature of this thread, and it being "meta" but - well I'll just say it; there's a higher quality of commentary and individuals going on in here. You clearly make an effort and care enough about the discussion. Not that I don't like "tabloid" or superficial and playful ones too. Those Slashdot-like runs of jokes, wit and memes are rare here but very enjoyable. Not to get too philosophical but it comes back to the question of "why we're here". What I said when I started this discussion remains true. I take the responses people give here seriously (not personally), as in I'll file them in my org notes with extra commentary - the kind I wish I could distil by analysis like; "dude seems really delighted with this idea and is the third person who likes it" or "fell on deaf ears again; reformulate". Clearly everyone comes to a forum for different reasons. Some to have their ideas validated. Some to look for inspiration. Some to just pass the time idly. Some to pick a fight. Some to spread their views. Some to heal and comfort.... So the machinery will not work perfectly for everyone. My complaints then, are about the machinery and how it (mis)shapes behaviours, not the people. People will be active or lazy as the tools afford them. But then, I'm probably a weirdo outlier in my reason/use of forums like this - because I use it instrumentally to "people watch" and get to the bottom of their emotional and ethical relation to technology. (And a little confessionally - to share/sympathise) The more mundane and selfish use I have is to promote the Cybershow (blog/podcast) I work on. Generally I find that well received because "self promotion" is something everybody shares these days. Anyway thanks for the tips. My feeling remains that the down-voting as currently formulated harms discussion. It needs some tweaking.