Wrestitaway wrote

I’ve used consensus on and off for a quarter century when organizing and there’s never been anything that’s analogous to Internet forums trying to implement such a system. Online versions always fail. Largely because you can’t readily see who is attempting to act in good faith. Which bad faith actors exploit.

You can’t stop evil people from organizing using such a system. But you can’t stop them from organizing inside of any system.

Typically, those concerned with maintaining power imbalances wouldn’t use consensus because its not in their interest to do so. They wouldn’t do it unless they knew everyone was already on board. And at that point, it’s moot.

Everybody in that subreddit knows implicitly that the majority will attack minority positions. The whole reason why that sub exists is due to most of them being kicked out of other subs for being jerks.

Half of organizing itself is trying to prevent harm caused by people like them.

You simply have to out organize them, forever.


Wrestitaway wrote

How exactly is this a strike against consensus decision making?

They weren’t engaged in it considering it’s reddit and reddit is inherently hierarchical. There’s no modding or demodding in consensus...and you can’t use PK and VOH as arbiters of such a system anyway (lol).

Just sounds like trash people making trash decisions.

Horizontalism is only as good as the people who use it and a bunch manarchists isn’t exactly the best pool to draw from.

Fuck pedo apologists.


Wrestitaway wrote


I had this idea when I thought konsent was going to be implemented into raddle and not as a stand-alone web app.

First - I can't program. I dunno if I used the term "scripts" correctly, but I'm sure those who know kinda know what I mean.

So I don't know how feasible some of this could be, but I think there are some basic hurdles to jump over before anything.

A lot of it can be solved by time limit windows or making discussion topics subraddle-specific.

We need an f/meta type subraddle where all these discussions can take place under their own post and be archived. People will be redirected to there from wherever they are originally.

  • Before any discussion can happen we need to figure out who can start discussions and where best to advertise and where those discussion should take place. Should it be in one specifical subraddle like f/meta or in any relevent subraddle? We should go with the former as I think its easier to archive and log.

  • We need a way to figure out how many people are going to be involved initially and are able to vote all the way through to the end to make the process consistent and deter vote manipulation. Like a time-limited open enrollment. Also, we need people to vote from their main accounts - accounts that are new should be excluded. Negative/low karma/troll accounts excluded. Which means:

    • We need a way for a member to post a groupwide/raddlewide topic that is distinguished from other regular posts (maybe a different color) that is essentially a script that allows people to sign up and enroll. So OP will create a title for their post and select a checkmark next to the submit button that will say something like: "Do you want this to be a consensus post?"

    • If they check that box - OP will have that posted to whatever subraddle they're in and it will serve as an open enrollment, but it will also automatically post to the f/meta type subraddle with the discussion title OP chose, .

    • That open enrollment is time-limited and when the clock runs out, it tallies up who enrolled and sends them a link to the f/meta type subraddle post. So we need to create a script that launches a dialogue box inside each "enrolled" members inbox that says something like this. It will create a link to that f/meta type subraddle discussion post.

If they click the link:

  • They are redirected to that post and they see another dialogue box that outlines the steps: like this

  • If everyone consents and/or concedes within some given timeline:

    • motion passes
    • thread is automatically locked and archived
    • it's logged in some public fashion where anyone can refer to it
  • If they object or oppose:

    • Each opposing member is given the original reply box to make their cases and express their concern. They are also given post-flair that states OPPOSE.

    • The now comment is open to other replies as per usual. Members can ask questions. Make statements and advocate their positions.

    • This process is under a time limit as well (2 hrs, 2 days, 2 weeks, whatever it may be) and when the clock runs out the dialogue box reappears and those opposed are given a chance to vote again.

    • If they still oppose - the process starts over. And other members are again allowed to make their compelling arguments and the opposing member is able to make new points.

    • That process repeats until everyone comes to a solution that they can live with and reaches consensus.

  • If someone thinks its imperative that they block the topic:

    • They choose block from the dialogue box
    • An automatic post appears with text "XXXXX has blocked this proposal" in the thread
    • If a high percentage (40%) block the proposal - the OP would be sent a message asking if they want to revise the initial post
    • If 50%+ block the proposal - then the proposal is logged and archived but deleted from the f/meta type subraddle and OP is messaged stating that it was a rejected proposal.

Wrestitaway wrote

I think it's important to note the difference between cruel mockery and actual apropriatation as well. Either way, there's usually a capitalist that made it his business to appropriate a culture that's always at fault for enabling it.