they/them, ona/ona
mi toki e toki pona
- Posts
- 10
- Comments
- 242
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 10
- Comments
- 242
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
well, this is my genuine attempt at gaining that consensus. thats why i addressed the community at large. i have also spoken with other users before making this post, and my intention is to make more users aware of issues and possible solutions.
yes, i know. but im not talking about every single aspect of their beliefs right now. im talking specifically, exclusively about decision-making processes in this entire post and comment section.
consensus meaning consensus decision-making process in this context, in case u got confused.
so yes, i want to tear down all hierarchies. and if my local racist conservative uncles already organize something anti-hierarchically, itll at least make it easier to convince them of my beliefs.
interesting point. im not familiar with the r/anarchism governance, but ill look into it.
i dont think i could change ur mind on this, but i know i and a few other users wouldve liked to engage in such discussion posts. whether it leads to this fatigue u describe or not is just speculation.
u could make a vote on it ig, or try it out for a limited time, then ask for feedback. i think this is about all i can do from my end tho.
thank u again for ur time.
hmmm i disagree with that sentiment. idk about the beliefs of dbzer0 admins, but as an anarchist myself, i would welcome any consensus, even among fascists.
once theres a decision-making process that includes everyones perspective and considers everyones needs, idgaf what u call urself and what ur affiliations are.
ofc i will likely disagree with the decisions a bunch of fascists make, but hey, at least theyre deciding anarchistically and i can bring my criticisms to the table and be heard (and for full consensus, they have to hear me out, too).
in online spaces, it just gets impossible to organize such full consensus, as well as ensure everyone is also a user and not just a malicious actor who wants to fuck everyone over.
idk what work i could engage in? there is central documentation. this is not my issue. sure, it could be clearer and better updated, but all in all i think its ok and does its job.
but i do not have the permissions to change how the governance bot responds to user's votes. i dont know if u understand my criticism is a structural one, not one of documentation.
i think the way the voting process itself works can be improved, and wrote down all the ways i could think of in one place. but i do not have the permission to change the current process, nor would i want to make this change over everyone elses heads.
there were some small questions i had. this post isnt about those. i have little interest in finding out if vouched-for members can open governance topics or if only paying members can. this isnt about that.
when i said in the post that the process is mostly opaque, i meant that its mostly impossible to understand without digging further into it, let alone find some random comment where someone asked for clarification.
it is opaque in the sense that if i participate in a vote (voting rights or not), i will see the bot response of some image of a pirate or a butterfly. perhaps ill think that means my vote was recorded. but i have no clue that there are voting rights at all and that my vote counts for basically nothing.
it should be as easy to understand as possible if we want maximum participation. if it had been clearer how it works, i probably wouldve donated sooner to get voting rights, and i wouldve vouched for a few ppl too.
this post is me giving suggestions on how to improve this and hoping others have ideas or objections to share. ive seen a few ppl who had similar criticisms and i wanted to provide a place to voice them. similar suggestions have even been made to the process before, got a positive response from an admin, and led to nothing (i linked a comment thread in the post that contains those).
I did mention that having too many governance posts invites voting fatigue. This applies here as well.
yes and i responded to that. discussions happen either way. u can have them happen before drafting a vote text, or after. whether users have the energy to engage in them before voting can be up to them.
As for having the regular people start a vote, the 2 times the post was opened at the request of a specific user, it was because they explicitly didn't want to open it under their own name, because they didn't want to invite abuse.
thats fair, but unless the person also drafted the post body, doesnt change my point at all.
If you have any ideas on how to improve the vouching culture of the instance, I'm all ears.
i have an idea. make it a habit to maybe once a week scroll through local user comments and pick one user who seems nice, look thru their history a bit, and vouch for them. get some kind of manual approval thing going that makes vouching more common. this should be low-effort enough, i hope. u could also more actively encourage other eligible users to vouch more (assuming u dont already).
of course, making vouching easier for regular users would be nice as well, but idk how easy that is to implement.
i want to also ask something else tho:
u seem to have skipped over my most important points in our discussion so far. namely the idea of a "discussion-post first, then vote-post" process (separate from proposal, amendments, etc.). and that the admin team is responsible for 100% of the voting posts so far, and therefore sets the example for regular (eligible-to-vote) users who might want to start a vote.
is this silent agreement or do u just not want to engage with it rn? im just asking, no shade either way and thank u for ur time so far
altho i was hoping to discuss decision-making more broadly here, i agree with u.
i live in germany and since the feddit.org defederation i also felt like i lost some connection to others in my area, im especially missing the memes and the local news.
im also physically incapable of just removing myself from the mainstream zionist beliefs here. in fact i think i have a responsibility to confront these ideas online so i can do the same - better prepared - offline as well.
Your other option is then to become a valuable and visible enough in the instance to be vouched for.
unfortunately im more of an "active lurker" type. neurodivergence and social anxiety make it near impossible for me to have simple social interactions online and irl.
Ultimately we need to have a way to limit manipulation somehow.
i understand and i think the vouching system is a great idea and implemented fine. i do wish we had more of a culture of vouching for users tho. i fear that many will only vouch for others bc theyre friends and share many opinions already, not bc its just a long-time member who engages in discussions in good-faith.
OK so you can't do it already, you could just theoretically do some work to do this in the future if you wanted to.
a non-technical user might have trouble with it, but theoretically i could open a git repo right now that hosts a blocklist file i can import with Interstellar. once imported, i can easily add or remove items from the list (i can also add several lists and enable/disable as i please). this is whats possible right now.
the only downside is that it doesnt automatically update them, so a non-techie might have issues using it like this.
I just have to ask, if this sort of instance already exists, and this sort of shared blocklist is so easy to implement for those who need it, why is it not enough for people who want to, to use those instances and shared blocklist software?
for me right now, it does seem like the best option. i would miss the feeling of community tho, and being able to participate in decisions that dont involve blocking instances/users would still be nice. ultimately, i want to be part of a more democratic social media. but i also want to be able to view memes from ppl in my local area (germany). legit the biggest reason im thinking of leaving dbzer0 is for ich_iel@feddit.org, as silly as it seems.
thanks for ur response!
Also wary of introducing additional administrative burden, which some of the suggestions you gave might do
i agree that the full proposal would be a bigger administrative burden, but i wanted to write about how i think it would be in the best case, so that we can see what works with the capacities we have and at the same time be open about what concessions are made.
at the very least i think some small changes and a "discussion post first, then voting post"-rule would take very little effort to implement. but since it isnt my place to implement it, i dont get to decide what to do.
I somehow want both - a curated experience where our members are free to have whatever experience they choose.
i really like the idea of community blocklists, that can be "patched"/overridden for specific entries or text-patterns etc., but unfortunately i dont have the skills to add the software support that would make it feasible for non-technical users. Interstellar supports blocklist-file imports tho, which makes this possible for more technical users.
maybe we will get this lemmy feature someday.
EDIT: if u browse on mobile, u might actually be interested in Interstellar. it supports adding several "filter lists" that u can enable/disable at will. so u could for example have a "mental health" list that u enable when ur in a bad place and disable when ur feeling better.
user-defined blocklists are already a thing in most lemmy apps (on mobile at least).
communally curated blocklists (e.g. on github etc.) are not a thing yet, to my knowledge.
u can add any executable to steam to use that overlay. this is how i play minecraft on the steamdeck for example.
i mostly agree but i think it could be a lot clearer how it works.
for the first few votes, i legit thought my vote counted like everybody elses. the bot response of "wildebeest image" was not helpful in clearing this up. a small note such as "u do not have voting rights, but ur vote will count as +0.01 votes instead" would be a good start.
Your suggestions are partially nice but I don't suspect their base goal is even wanted.
i think the base goal is wanted, its just difficult to fully achieve, which is why i think it hasnt been done. full consensus is basically impossible, but weak consensus like 80-90% is totally doable imo if we simply used a process based on "discussion, then voting", with a broader range of eligible-to-vote users.
but this is an anarchist instance run by (mostly?) anarchists, i have no doubts about their base goals being pro-consensus.
just because a vote is taken and goes one way at one moment in time, doesn't mean we cannot open another vote, or amendment about the same subject later on.
yes, of course, but the way every vote is phrased (and the fact that it is a vote on a specific proposal) primes ppl not to think about the issue broadly, and therefore limits any discussion that happens about it.
You also don't need to wait for unruffled to make governance posts. Any person who can vote, can open governance posts.
i do need to wait, since i dont have voting rights. ive had issues with where the instance is going for a while, so i couldnt justify making a donation so far.
anyway, the fact that the admin team inherently becomes aware of issues first means that they will be the ones who get to open governance posts about those. this is obvious when u look at the 9 votes that were done so far, all of them were posted by Flatworm. so, by this fact, flatworm or the rest of the admin team decides how governance is implemented specifically. and those who make the posts have the responsibility to do it well.
Assuming the software handling the blocklist allows this.
ideally a software could handle that in the background, yes. but there're lemmy apps that support blocklist imports already, so i could already do this. id just need to manually update them by hand, or id have to write a script to automate that.
thanks a lot for the reply.
yea, online decision-making is tough to handle, and theres a lotta issues stemming from the anonymity aspect alone. so i understand that my first idea is likely very difficult to implement fully and would cost those involved in it a lot of energy as well.
the way u spoke about "voting-fatigue" makes me wonder tho, wouldnt we already have that?
i know i definitely have long discussions in every voting poll, where new ideas come up that possibly werent considered as options. so this is already kind of happening, but bc of the structure that is used, the discussion is effectively worthless. so i think theres definitely enough energy there to have that discussion first, then follow it with a vote on a (now more thought-out) proposal. at the very least, it should make it easier for Flatworm to understand the "against" side more, which seems to have been a difficulty in past voting posts.
Instead of trusting the admins of your instance, you're now implicitly trusting the blocklist curators instead.
theres a fundamental difference, tho: i can override the blocklist. i could make my own patches to it, but still keep the list updated. also, i could opt in/out at will without changing to a different instance with a different community and rules and governance.
"is there any way to create an amended proposal. can any user create proposals. Is there any document that explains our voting process etc"
i think u mightve misunderstood my intention. im sure there are technically ways we could create amended proposals (for example) given the tools we have now, but the fact of the matter is that since its not an explicit part of the process, it wont be done.
there is of course a document that explains the voting process. only users with voting rights can create proposals (whether vouched-for users can is unclear tho).
"what are the methods that you feel should be available to us to deal with problem instances. What threshold of specific poor behavior should be met before specific actions are taken to address those?"
i gave the example of instance defederation, but my criticisms were directed at the decision-making process as a whole. these questions are things that a good process would bring up and clear up. i have no interest in discussing it here.
-gain and disseminate understanding on a process
-gain understanding of the current consensus
ive read every post i could find about the current process on this instance, the wiki, and the git repo. and ive participated in almost every proposal that was made.
yes, i had some small questions, but they wouldnt change my criticisms very much either way.
"somebody (implying not me) should have done something different.
as an anarchist instance, i dont want to be the "messiah" who comes up with "the perfect plan" of how to handle decisions. its just not up to me. we need to come together and change things if we see the need. this was me showing that i see a need, and hoping others would too.
I don't understand what's going on.
i think i do understand enough about whats going on to make this post.
again, im unsure what u were trying to say, so apologies if i misunderstood u completely, im doing my best.
thanks! i thought so, but it wasnt explicitly cleared up
/0 @lemmy.dbzer0.com Decision-Making on dbzer0 and the FAF
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone rulevrything is fine
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone bruleaking bad
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone rule
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone ms tek rule
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ @lemmy.dbzer0.com looking for a specific downloader website
sitelen musi @lemmy.dbzer0.com soweli ko li mu
sitelen musi @lemmy.dbzer0.com soweli ko li lanpan
sitelen musi @lemmy.dbzer0.com o lape a!
thanks! u too :3