Yes, you know, I think the paradoxical situation is basically quite fine, because it is able to represent something very interesting: That there is no praise and no punishment at all, but actually always only one lesson to take and give. In the most positive sense of all. It describes a spontaneous being alive in situations of contemporary nature. When I receive such a lesson, which I do not consider either as punishing or praising, I can take it as a question addressed to me: Is what the other person is saying to me in any way consistent? Then I say: Thank you for the lesson, there is a part of it that inspires me to change my action/thoughts. If the lesson is not coherent, I say: Thank you for the lesson and your intention to give me one. Only I did not need it right now. Thanks anyway.

Now the analogy I am using is just an analogy. The punching in the stomach didn't really happen. Neither did the knocking over of the tip jar from your example.

I think what those who have a similarly humorous view of downvotes want to express is that they acknowledge that a virtual currency is simply virtual and the actions here need not have any physical consequences. It is easily said that the 7-day window represents a quantity in the making. As long as it lasts, every up- or downvote is nothing more than an ongoing process. You are neither punished nor rewarded in this becoming.

In principle I have nothing against this view. It does, however, presuppose that those in the process of becoming the result of the votes will see it that way, and that they will see it as a game that is not to be taken too seriously.

In so far as I cannot assume that the recipient of my downvotes does not have the same view, I would have to ask him beforehand, in order to ensure that he can become a friend with this idea, whether he agrees with me that I merely want to give him a friendly lesson in the form of a downvote. If he says: "Yes", then I end up back at the initial question, what is the point of downvotes, right? Because as far as the content is concerned, I have not yet said anything about the lesson in question. So we would have a friendly exchange about it, he would accept my lesson with thanks.

If everyone was always ready for a lesson and an up- or down-vote would result in a self reflexive questioning of the author of a publication, someone who receives a down/up-vote would ask himself: "Oh, so I received a down-vote ... what is that supposed to tell me? In deed, I think that everyone already knows when writing an article that there are some things they shouldn't say or write like that, but they do it against their better judgment. Same goes for the things expressed which one considers probably coherent (we know always as a Hintergedanke --> look at quote No. 9 from bottom of the site up.

This completely self-referential approach is a tough challenge for people, but of course we can do exactly that. Why? Because it is fun. After all - and this is world famous - you wouldn't accept a ready-made answer from another person anyway, if you wouldn't give it to yourself as well.

Since I don't assume that people see this as a paradoxical environment, but one that should be taken seriously, I cannot give any downvotes, because there is no convention in the classical sense of the word. I need people who accept lessons in the way I need them.