Recent comments in /f/Decision_Making

PerfectSociety wrote

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 Then at the regional levels they have delegates (who rotate out every week or can be withdrawn at any time by the assemblies) who work to achieve consensus among each other.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.

2

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.

3

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.

−2

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

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.

3

leftous OP wrote (edited )

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?

3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

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 :)

4

red_pepper wrote

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?

3