The term vote implies the action carries one of two values but zaps give you also magnitude so it tells you more. That alone means “vote” is not the right word.
On top we can react with emojis each of which carries information distinct from “yes/no/abstain” so again I think “vote” is not the right idea.
All that said, haven’t thought about a better label. Just wanted to add that it’s more than just semantics 😅
🎯
I’ll be curious what label you come up with. I’ll stop using “vote”… and I would argue there is a slippery slope here. Notes are ideas and when you support a note with sats it means something.
Take political donations as an example, politician to me represents nothing more than a set of ideas.
Politician is a grifter that wants to steal my money
The term “politic” stripped to its core is not much more than Nietzsche’s will-to-power. Strip away the moral language, emotional appeals, and lofty ideals…
From this perspective, it’s hard to see one as human if one’s not some part politician.
Other humans aren’t trying to “politician” (will to power) my money into their hands. But the actual “Politicians” in government are actively trying to.
Why only consider these politicians?
I did not. For the sake of argument, I accepted your claim but I made a distinction between politicians and the specific politicians who act based on the general belief of what politicians are: grifters in office.
Good. General beliefs are too laced with emotional appeals to be useful most of the time.
I like the term favor, but that only makes sense when constructing a model of quantifying relationship quality between npubs.
Maybe in a general model, call it a “will”.
Vote → Collective Will
Tip → Gratitude Will
Favor → Reciprocity Will
Donation → Value-alignment Will
Bribe → Illegitimate Will
Zap → Signalized Micro Will
