Recent comments in /f/Decision_Making
retiredshared5 wrote
This, actually, is a very legitimate point; the issue would be not reading posts, though Raddle feels like a lot more people actually do interact as opposed to Reddit (visible clearly on /r/libertarian where the posts are usually upvoted Trumpers and the comments usually upvoted and disgruntled libertarians)
As in many cases, the issue is one of prompting participation.
ziq wrote
Reply to comment by ziq in How Upvote/Downvote Sites like R***** Breed Irrational Herd Behavior by itaniepitas
Too bad it's completely unwarranted.
ziq wrote
Reply to comment by itaniepitas in How Upvote/Downvote Sites like R***** Breed Irrational Herd Behavior by itaniepitas
You sure have a high opinion of yourself, fella.
itaniepitas OP wrote
Having read all this, I see that any attempt on my part to open the tiny minds of those in lock-step agreement with the misled and myopic groupthink consensus of this pitiful little echo chamber would be futile - kind'a like pissin' on a prairie fire - so I'm done here. I have no doubt you'd ban me at your next book burning anyway.
ziq wrote
Reply to The Polarization of America by itaniepitas
Democrats and republicans are the same thing for all intents and purposes - capitalists - so who gives a shit?
surreal wrote
Reply to The Theology of Consensus by An_Old_Big_Tree
mind bending. again dogma destroying everything. atm there are not many alternatives though.
leftous OP wrote
Reply to comment by An_Old_Big_Tree in [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
Thanks.
That's interesting because the Transhumanists could have just as easily passed their 'no trolling' policy in their forum, and this whole situation could have been avoided. lol
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote
Reply to comment by leftous in [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
So far as I've understood, individual forums have always been able to implement additional rules, and some have.
f/freeasinfreedom for example even has a whole wiki of its rules - w/freeasinfreedom/rules.
So perhaps what is involved is more encouraging people to act more autonomously with their spaces and do do more organising within them.
leftous OP wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by An_Old_Big_Tree in [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
I think you're right, this would create way too much work for admins and could produce other problems as /u/ziq mentioned. Letting forums/mods optionally adopt rules like this makes more sense.
So perhaps we should have a proposal where individual forums become more autonomous and can implement additional rules/procedures on top of the ToS?
ziq wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by An_Old_Big_Tree in [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
Really, involving admins at all in interpersonal politics shouldn't be happening. Just us voting on a proposal causes people to ragequit because we don't vote the way they want.
ziq wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by An_Old_Big_Tree in [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
I think this makes a lot of sense.
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote
Reply to comment by An_Old_Big_Tree in [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
Oh and thanks Lettous for getting this going.
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote
Reply to [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
Hi all
I'm super low on capacity at the moment but feel its important to say what I can.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with this, in part because it seems to increase bureacracy and law-like behaviour, in part because it makes work for admins, and in part because that probably means it gives power to admins.
I'm just going to throw another idea into the mix, not sure if it's good: If we can try to find a way to make this work at the level of forums and moderators rather than site-wide - effectively creating spaces (forums) where certain individuals/approaches are not welcome, it could then be maintained by those people in those communities.
e.g. If some group is feuding with another - let's say particular marxists are feuding with ancoms, those marxists could be banned from relevant ancom-based forums, and the ancoms then are left to curate and manage their own space.
This doesn't preclude fighting in other spaces, but it does provide everyone with the opportunity to have spaces where they aren't going to deal with antagonism. I prefer also the idea that forums are largely autonomous so long as they aren't breaking the ToS.
Ok that's me for now :)
ziq wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by An_Old_Big_Tree in [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
Maybe disengagement could include not talking about each other at all?
Idk how that would work if there were a proposal in meta about one of them tho.
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote
Reply to comment by ziq in [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
One problem here is that it likely devolves into an argument about whether someone else started it or not.
ziq wrote (edited )
Reply to [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
Yeah I saw that hal left, what a bummer.
I agree with your idea but you should stipulate that the disengagement agreement no longer applies if 1 of the 2 users is talking negatively about the other. We can't expect people not to defend themselves when under attack.
leftous OP wrote
Reply to comment by red_pepper in [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
I think this is a great idea. In that case, it could actually work to the community's benefit to have the disengagement to be social and non-technical since there are many nuances like this that a blocking feature could not accommodate.
This should definitely be added to the proposal.
red_pepper wrote
Reply to [Pre-proposal] I would like input on a "Disengagement" proposal before I present it in /f/meta by leftous
There's already a "block user" option in the toolbox if you go to another user's user page.
But, yeah, disengagement is still a good idea. The existing block feature clearly isn't good enough, and I don't know how a future one could address all the ways that fight played out. It doesn't stop someone from smearing you publicly or dragging you on other forums or spreading a fictionalized version of events to drag more people into the fight. In a different situation, where perhaps someone has decided to ruin another user's reputation, blocking would even be detrimental to defending yourself!
So, on top of not replying to each other's comments or posts, I'd make the disengagement more broad (maybe depending on the circumstances). No linking to each other's comments or posts. No baiting them in the comments section by talking about them with other users. No involvement in public votes about the other user. No making threads or memes ect about the other user. No roping other people into the conflict to fight on their behalf. No spreading rumors. Other things which may or may not apply in the given situation, depending on what the specific issues are and how many people are involved ect.
Basically, a social media restraining order. What do you think?
PerfectSociety wrote
Reply to The Theology of Consensus by An_Old_Big_Tree
Perhaps a potential solution could be to combine consensus with delegation? This isn't a new idea. The Zapatistas use consensus at the most local levels where the people themselves reach a consensus in assemblies. Then at the regional levels they have delegates (who rotate out every week or can be withdrawn at any time by the assemblies) who work to achieve consensus among each other. The Zapatistas also use majority vote, but only in situations where consensus simply is unable to be reached.