Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dele_ted wrote

Reply to comment by surreal in Decision making paradigm by surreal

I mean majority voting, but with onymous votes, as if we were simply counting raised hands.

At the moment the solution that is accepted in phase3 is the one with the most votes. That's plurality voting which is kinda worse than majority, cause in this case there is a chance that even the majority would be left out.

If they feel that their needs were overlooked, they can use their veto. Trying to dominate the minority and simply forcing your solution upon them without being open to modifying it until everyone is satisfied is just wasted time, since it'll be vetoed instantly without a doubt. I don't think we need to have rules for this, i think it'll happen dynamically if discussion is accessible and encouraged.

1

surreal OP wrote

Yea onymous voting it necessary for open discussion. We are pretty much saying the same thing, it's mostly about implementation.

If you take a look at 'The process' paragraph in the anarchistlibrary article or in this flow chart it seems that vetoing is part of process and not an option after the process has come up with a solution. This makes the loop faster and forces the issue/solution proposals to change more while the discussion is happening.

1

dele_ted wrote

Hmm, you're right that vetoing should not just throw the issue away and restart everything. I just had this idea, it might work, it might not, haven't thought it completely through myself:

We'll add a new type of veto: soft. Soft veto won't bring the issue to "vetoed proposals", but will instead send it back to phase two. This will probably make people much more careful with the hard veto, too.

What do you think?

1

surreal OP wrote

yea that's a start. this is complicated

1

dele_ted wrote

It really is. I like the concept of registering "stand asides", might be something worth looking into later on.

We should also make it so that a veto, soft or hard, will require a short explanation.

We really have to beta-test Konsent once it's ready for that to spot the flaws. It's difficult to figure out how the community will use it right now.

1

surreal OP wrote

the explanation will be part of discussion. with onymous voting there is no need to add extra stuff other than links.

1

dele_ted wrote

You're right, that's not necessary. One thing I've been thinking about is, how should we handle individuals who grief Konsent and veto every proposal, even the proposal to ban them? Do we need some sort of emergency use vote-for-ban that would require 90% or more to support? Should individuals not be allowed to veto proposals involving themselves?

2

surreal OP wrote (edited )

this is still unclear to me, maybe others can propose some solutions.

Maybe try it without any limits and see how it works at first? or a have veoting limit?

we will at some point need to add functionality for administrating the issue in a consensus way as well, that would mean we will have to implement specific 'meta' proposals, like banning, for the functionality behind unions and their more general issues.

Btw we should probably come up with a lingo for all these. Also i was thinking that there can be two types of 'issues', one that is a proposal that seeks cosensus, like banning a user, and the other being an issue that will require proposals to iterate until it come down to consensus about one. does this make sense? edit: this can be abstract enough so there is no need for different types.

3