From: Hermit (virus@hermit.net)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 21:37:44 MDT
[Jake Sapiens 1] http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=;action=voteResults;idvote=42
[David Lucifer 2]
[Hermit 3]
[Hermit 4]
[Rhinoceros 5]
[Hermit 6]
[hr]
[Hermit 4] Game over.
[rhinoceros 5] A strange game. It looks like Jake won by losing.
[Hermit 6] Not really, as previously mentioned, there is an evolving set of "rules" growing via an informal nomic on the wiki. For example, the http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirianVoting page (previously just Voting) has been extensively updated due to the discussions between myself and DavidLucifer consequent on Jake's vote. Even so, I strongly suggest that the vote he established has not moved the game ahead any more than would have been the case had he raised it on the wiki, So I'm not sure how this can be perceived as a victory. Jake is, naturally, not only welcome to participate in that game, he has been invited to do so - repeatedly, In my opinion, his playing a different and more complex game, with different rules and with the potential to be highly divisive, in an evironment which has seen sufficient conflict to last a lifetime, does not help the CoV or its members nearly as much as his keen eye and clear phrasing might on the wiki.
[Jake 1] While I find this interesting feedback, it really strikes me as rule by incestuous polling. Have we mistaken a useful feedback mechanism for an appropriate control mechanism? Important issues of Virian Doctrine deserve better consideration.
[Hermit 6] As I mentioned to Rhinoceros on IRC, I'm not sure that any of us knows what Jake meant here? I even wonder if Jake did so himself?
[rhinoceros 5] I do see a point in Jake's vote topic, although I would put it somehow differently.
[Hermit 6] Jake can directly address any difficulties he perceives on the wiki or on IRC. So why did he think that he needed to play games.
[rhinoceros 5] Before getting into the specifics, I should point out that there seem to be objections to the fact that Jake posted that vote topic in the way he did, as allowed by the system. This very fact seems to be an argument *for* Jake. In principle, Jake's vote topic could have produced a result without even being disussed.
[Hermit 6] Because if he thinks the system is wrong, then he is wrong to support it and has a responsibility to address it via the best forms of communications availabel. If he does not think the system is wrong, then his post seemed unecessarily slanted. Which doesn't make sense. So I'm hoping Jake decides to communicate directly, as it seems to me that, there is much less potential for confusion and misunderstanding when talking as opposed to tossing,
[Hermit 6] Mysterious hints, that is.
[rhinoceros 5] About our reputation/voiting system: It is a very good mechanism which can be part of a control system, but not an acceptable full blown control system. We'll have to figure out its limitations and take care of them with a kind of a "constitution", "bill of rights", or whatever else it takes. For example, should a majority of, say, 80% be able to silence a minority of 20% just on the grounds of disagreement? Or should they have to prove that those people harm the community?
[Hermit 6] Conventional religions tend to have at least two things which in our case, we have not got. Common goals and strong government. They also tend to have something else which our "Reputation system" begins to provide. A clearly defined body of people who set and apply "norms". If only because defining rules and establishing "ecclesiatical courts" to maintain order in a "church" environment is very difficult to implement unless the church is the government. Because there is no way to enforce judgements. However, they are able to define who is and is not welcome in their temples and what behaviour is acceptable - and not. And will invite people to leave when it is clear that they are incompatible. The rulebase being developed on the wiki is an attempt to generate the same for us.
[rhinoceros 5] The important thing is to put our administrative efforts in the service of our more general goals such as growing in numbers, attracting thinking people and especially young ones who won't take anyone's word for granted, and making our discussions more deep, diverse, and entertaining. We should also take into account that this is an online community, not a real life environment, and that we have to compete with other forums for the most valuable and interesting people.
[Hermit 6] I couldn't agree with you more. However when spending 500+ hours a week on dealing with explosions and people who think we should not have rules, goals or a target memberset, it is difficult to make progress. With a little luck, perhaps we can get past this stage and start working on the fun stuff?
[rhinoceros 5] Back to the vote system. I can see several main categories of topics on my screen. There are factual polls, opinion polls, votes on philosphical/worldview questions, votes on general CoV administration questions, votes on personal CoV administration questions and so on. Apparently, the meaning and the significance of a vote is not the same for all these categories. For example, what is the significance of a majority vote on "what is truth" or on the "pusuit of happiness" or on "human nature"? Would someone who is in the minority on some of these topics be subject to a "Disciplinary process", according to this?
[Hermit 6] Agreed. You will find this discussed at both http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirianVoting and http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/WikiVoting. I'd suggest that informational polls are not intended to result in anything but deciding what our current membership looks like, suggest who our target membership should include and help in discussing compatability vs diversity. The more we know about ourselves, the easier this will be.
[rhinoceros 5] http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/DisciplinaryProcess"If somebody asserts that they are a member of this community, then the opinion and will of the community is binding upon that member, and the will of the community governs that persons acceptance as a member."
[rhinoceros 5] Or should that person keep their mouth shut until they get a chance to sneak in some votes to change the consensus, *if* that particular poll happens to be still open. I am jesting, of course, because I don't think this is what a vote on those topics signifies. Or is it?
[Hermit 6] Hopefully this is "asked and answered" above. These are two different issues. On the one hand, members of the community should be working towards the goal of making the community an appealing place to be. When it is clear that a member is not working towards that goal, the membership has the right (and I say obligation) to persuade the dissenter to fit in or fuck off. On the other, there is the fact that a rich tapestry of diverse opinion makes the community a more appealing place. The one speaks to intent, the other speaks to character. I see no conflict between these two, as you observe, very different goals.
[rhinoceros 5] The pure administrative votes have a different significance. There are two issues here. First, the way the poll is implemented (title and options), as Lucifer pointed out in the case of Jake's post. I will just add that emotional expressions and adjectives are not the only way in which one can try to influence the voters. Second, no matter how wise and influential the voters are, nothing can replace a good discussion which will bring the thorny side-issues to the surface. In my opinion, this is the most important point in Jake's vote topic. I suggest we require a discussion in the BBS where the participants should have a certain total amount of equity for any important and/or binding administrative and/or personal issues. A frictionless vote cast is not likely to grasp the implications of a decision.
[Hermit 6] And against this are apathy and uninvolvement. Notice that we have 40 members in the "Congregation" (out of nearly 1700 on the list and BBS) and most polls receive support from only 60% of the equity held by the congregation. Until we increase these numbers dramatically, we will be horribly limited in what we can and can't say about the membership. So the idea is to get the system working and then make it more attractive to others by increasing the range of activities enabled by the reputation and poll systems.
[rhinoceros 5] By the way, here is another problem, although not directly related to the topic of this thread. I think the reputation votes are somehow one-dimensional. That is, suppose I give someone a high rating for his knowledge and quality of posts and then something new comes up and I realize that he has been using his influence acting on some of his other qualities which I did not appreciate. However, I had to vote on the full package. Is there an easy way to resolved this? Maybe in the future we will be able to embed our simple reputaton algorithm in a more complex structure. In real life, law is separate from administration, and the control mechanisms for both are also different.
[Hermit 6] The reputation is being based on the totality of the individual. We see a separate system taking that "reputation" as the "default" being applied to posts. In other words, we should end up being able to vote on a post-by-post basis, and possibly be able to set different criteria for use of different "focus boards" - and area that would have had a lot more attention if we were not up to ourt necks trying to deal with alligators of both the hotile and tame persuasion. My perspective was that "Jake's poll" was of the latter persuasion.
Kind Regards
Hermit
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29174> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 21:38:18 MDT