Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

7

dele_ted wrote

Thank you! The system was originally designed for a physical community, and currently relies on the fact that the community is closed and the members trust each other, and also that they can be held accountable for their actions in real life. If we used this as a decision making tool on Raddle right now, new users could completely sabotage everything by vetoing for no good reason and griefing in general.

There's many ways to get around that, here's some of the ideas i have that might solve this issue, either alone or in combination with each other:

  • Make the list of union (or community, whatever you want to call it) members visible to all members of the union, and implement a vote-banning system.

  • Only allow members older than X months to participate in decision making. I'm a little split on this solution, since it could possibly result in a conservative hierarchy, but it might work out just fine.

  • Only allow members older than X months to participate, AND let existing decision-makers vote for and against if they want every time a new member of the Konsent union is to be accepted. (This is probably a better solution than the one above, but again, it has its own issues).

Or, and this is one worth considering:

  • Get rid of the vetoing system completely. Perhaps it doesn't belong on online platforms.

If you have any other ideas, just fire away.

3

surreal wrote

maybe only accounts created before the start of a vote issue can participate in that voting. the heuristics can also include how much active a user is so fake accounts that were created just for sabotaging an issue won't be as effective. but the criteria of activity would be hard to implement.

3

dele_ted wrote

maybe only accounts created before the start of a vote issue can participate in that voting

That would make sense, good idea. I'll add it to the issues on GitHub.

the heuristics can also include how much active a user is so fake accounts that were created just for sabotaging an issue won't be as effective

Not sure if that would work, i think it's important to allow people to participate just as much as they want. Some people don't want to be active in decision-making, but might want to have a voice when an issue they care about comes up.