Konsent Kebooted

Actually though, I'd recommend you ask for moderator on this sub in that case, given the current mod is deleted.

With onymous votes it would be. The same fundamental flaws are in place on Konsent as on Raddle, it's just a bit harder to pull of with Konsent.

I think naming it a dictionary word is a somewhat bad idea, but Konsent Rebooted doesn't work. I'll figure something out.

Yep, probably Flask, perhaps Django.

kconsent

I disagree, if they want to add it to KDE's suite of application, it is necessary to have a k in the name.

the plan was for votes to be onymous

you can just name it consent tbh. the old sourcecode is here

konsent is imo not usable with raddle atm: anonymity and democracy looks hard to implement both at the same time, when we have this small of a user-base. It's good that you find real life application for konsent!

Sounds good. Will it be using python again?

A link to all suggested solutions will be put in phase 3, and in "Completed Solutions" (or phase 4, whatever you want to call it).

I'm not sure i understand what you mean by "grouping together decisions"?

Was thinking about making a proposal and it seems it would be a bit complicated to do with konsent at the moment, so I'm thinking that future useful functionality would be able to deal effectively with things like:

• grouping together decisions.
• having mulltiple passing solutions

Say a user is offering to set up threadbots for the community. Phase 1 is the offer.

Phase 2, people suggest the sites they want to get a feed from, AND the amount of votes required for any threadbot feed to be created.

Phase 3, each of the suggested sites is voted on, and number of votes (value X) required for each site is voted on.

Phase 4, results show all options voted for above X votes.

Yeah, it would be really neat if the two could blend better, but without a Raddle API and with only two devs it's not realistic. A Raddle bot controlled by community decisions taken with Konsent is very realistic, though.

This is looking promising. A part of me wishes there was a way to automatically be logged into Konsent when you log into Raddle and have the accounts tied together in the software, but I imagine that's not realistic any time soon.

Let's keep discussion in the /f/meta post. I locked this one for now.

This is very interesting! i'm trying to create a flow chart and diagram for konsent, these concepts will come in handy.

At the moment we're going with the separation of the discussion part and the consensus part. Discussion will take place elsewhere and not in konsent.

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.

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?

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

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.

Yay for progress!

yea that's a start. this is complicated

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?

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.

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.