Roleplaying Video Games Entertainment & Media Politics & Religion General
Worldbuilding Creative Forum The Sports Center Science, Math, & Technology The Nostalgia Forum
Community feedback needed: Free Speech add_comment New Discussion add_comment New request

Site Announcements

IMPORTANT: Community feedback model

Posted 2 Months ago by Riven

Given the tight-knit nature of the community here, I'm altering the way disputes get settled:

  • The community as a whole should be able to weigh in.

  • I also need to weigh in to make sure neither side is going against GTX0's principles. These will actually be codified at the bottom of the site, not just randomly decided upon when I disagree with something.

  • Assuming it's valid, the decision should be based on whatever the general consensus is.

  • If it isn't that easy, I'll try to work with both parties to reach a compromise.

    Site Suggestions

    This model will work for site suggestions as well -- new features really shouldn't impact other members of the site negatively (see: blocking feature) without some discussion first. It's also important that the site doesn't become bloated from excess features -- the community can definitely help prevent that.

    Site suggestions/requests will be getting an infrastructure boost as well, though nothing as stupid as the last way I did that.

    Xhin to user feedback

    This model will also work in cases where I'm asking the community for feedback (for example, user blocking).

    Infrastructure changes

  • Dispute resolution / Site issues are getting merged into a Disagreements forum.

  • There will be infrastructure in place for you to pick what type of issue it is -- user vs user, user vs mod, user vs site (such as features).

  • Users can vote on the issue via a select box (which also lets you add your own entries). You don't have to do this in order to weigh in and the actual numeric votes aren't what will be counted towards consensus, but it does help to have things aggregated for organizational reasons.

  • Votes will be aggregated in the OP.

    Linking

  • Active disagreements will appear below the quicklinks so users can see current issues easily.

  • There will be a "+ New" in the quicklinks area itself that does what you'd expect.

  • The Disagreements forum will have the disclaimer system attached to it.

    IMPORTANT

    If you care about the site or its future in any capacity, please weigh in on the actual complaints. Decisions made by the community will affect everyone who uses the site, including you. Don't sit by if you feel a particular way.

    If you're more apathetic, there will be an account option to turn off the area of the quicklinks that has disputes in it. With that and not signing the disclaimer, you won't be exposed to anything.

  • There are 33 Replies


    If that doesn't work and there's still two (or more) sides, then I'll pick one of the two sides in a completely arbitrary way, possibly via an RNG. No compromises and no consideration for the other side. This is the option you don't want -- it's in your interest to agree to some kind of compromise.
    So essentially you're trying to force us into compromising even if compromising may not always be the best option and in doing so potentially risking a worse outcome for most people depending on... complete chance. This is more of what I mean, the way you end up doing things it'd at least sometimes just be better if you did nothing. Which is something people also had rightful complaints about.

    2 Months ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    I know me being significantly in the minority of most disagreements often leaves me feeling pretty alienated half the time I won't even say anything on the boards openly because I don't get the sense expressing general frustrations or grievances is accepted unless the majority already aligns with you.

    2 Months ago
    tnu
     

    Another weird solution to a simple problem.

    2 Months ago
    Moonray
     

    My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.

    Adlai Stevenson

    2 Months ago
    tnu
     

    I don't think people expressing unpopular opinions is at all an issue here.

    It's the fact that people feel a need to be offensive about it. Especially when others decide not to agree.

    2 Months ago
    Moonray
     

    I mean I'm certainly a proponent of a "right to offend". Also to paraphrase the man "It depends on what you mean by offensive." I was quite offended and disgusted by something someone else here said recently that I found to be extremely callus for example.

    https://youtu.be/44pERGAaKHwhttps://youtu.be/wjtGvooX054https://youtu.be/BtWrljX9HRAhttps://youtu.be/lT8EOWlK_9Qhttps://youtu.be/VGPqyGJ-1g4https://youtu.be/9AwW-P5vHsQ

    Quite simply the whims of the zeitgeist can not be trusted to rule people.

    2 Months ago
    tnu
     

    I know me being significantly in the minority of most disagreements often leaves me feeling pretty alienated half the time I won't even say anything on the boards openly because I don't get the sense expressing general frustrations or grievances is accepted unless the majority already aligns with you.
    Tnu I get it, and in some cases you may have a point it's just this is a bad system as a general rule especially since it could end up chance based and not based on any reason. And maybe that's Xhin trying to be like "well my reasoning isn't necessarily well liked so I'll just roll a dice or something" but it still ends up a bad idea in itself.

    2 Months ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    I would say it's not a matter of whether it's well liked so much as am atter of Xhin having a degree of skepticism to his own potential reasoning and biases and a general dissatisfaction with attempts to account for it.

    EDIT: Grey DM'd me with a compelling case for his point so I"m evaluating right now. (at least as it pertains to Xhin's method)

    2 Months ago
    tnu
     

    I mean I'm certainly a proponent of a "right to offend".


    I find it ironic on this site that often those who support the right to say whatever they want to whomever they want without consequence, are also often the people who get the most offended and complain when people don't like what they have to say.

    2 Months ago
    Moonray
     

    By all means, be constructive and give me a better solution for situations where neither side can compromise.

    2 Months ago
    Riven
     

    It's simple. One person is the problem, deal with the one person.

    I can't count the number of times people have left the site because problem users are allowed to continue being a problem.

    2 Months ago
    Moonray
     

    Well what seemed reasonable initially was more just trying to act in what seems like the community's interests as Moonray said it seems like a weird solution to simple problems. Maybe you're somewhat onto something though idk.

    But if you insist, if a compromise can't be reached within a certain amount of time, instead going with the majority of the community is probably one of the best options. Not one without potential problems too but it beats just leaving it up to chance to risking a possible situation where only one person is benefited.

    Alternatively you could do something like if more than a few people agree with the minority side, no action may be taken or a middleground is determined through randomly selected people (sort of like a jury) until a more unifying solution is found which still beats just doing something like flipping a coin or whatever, however I don't know how you'd ensure those random people would actually bother or necessarily see it without plastering their name on the site even then they may not. Or how you'd get the random names.

    OR something like we could have "representatives" to determine how issues should be resolved that can be at any time "voted out" or "voted in" if someone calls them into question, a feedback thread could occur before they're allowed to make a decision but ultimately the choice is up to them.

    2 Months ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    Ignoring everything I printed on the subject as a whole and I certainly wouldn't call it ironic ju st a natural conclusion of be ing screwed by systems that favor mobs and majorities.

    2 Months ago
    tnu
     


    But if you insist, if a compromise can't be reached within a certain amount of time, instead going with the majority of the community is probably one of the best options.


    That's reasonable, but what if there isn't a majority? IIRC with the #85 issue back in the day it was literally half and half (I think 10 for and 10 against).


    Ignoring everything I printed on the subject as a whole and I certainly wouldn't call it ironic ju st a natural conclusion of be ing screwed by systems that favor mobs and majorities.


    I agree, but even if that changes it won't be purely a majority-rules process anyway because the founding principles take precedence.

    2 Months ago
    Riven
     

    I agree, but even if that changes it won't be purely a majority-rules process anyway because the founding principles take precedence.



    Well that's good at least


    Anyway Moonray are you going to address the arguments I linked or just leave it at a personal attack?

    2 Months ago
    tnu
     

    That's reasonable, but what if there isn't a majority? IIRC with the #85 issue back in the day it was literally half and half (I think 10 for and 10 against).

    Well out of the options I presented think the representative idea and this have the most merit.

    If you're referencing the mod election though, it really wasn't. At the TIME some people just had issues with me replacing Famov or literally anyone replacing Famov and the root of disagreement seemed less in regards to #85 himself. Most people seemed to be against #85. If you're not referencing that though I have no clue. I can't remember a time where a #85 issue was tied.

    I agree, but even if that changes it won't be purely a majority-rules process anyway because the founding principles take precedence.

    This really has the potential to be really bad or really good or anywhere in-between since we literally know nothing about this. And personally I think you'd be better off with something like having "representatives" so there isn't a block to what the people actually want if giving people what they want is really the road you want to go down.

    2 Months ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    I mean I wouldn't tru st anyone to "represent" me so a constitutional " rule of law" type systems seems best to me.

    2 Months ago
    tnu
     

    I mean I wouldn't tru st anyone to "represent" me

    Hence why I said they can be voted out at ANY TIME. We don't really have the corruption problems as a small forum that a fucking country might either.

    so a constitutional " rule of law" type systems seems best to me.

    Unless of course it goes against your interest. Then it fucking sucks just as bad at the least now doesn't it?

    2 Months ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    Anyway Moonray are you going to address the arguments I linked or just leave it at a personal attack?


    When I have time to watch the videos maybe.

    2 Months ago
    Moonray
     

    Unless of course it goes against your interest. Then it fucking sucks just as bad at the least now doesn't it?


    I mean I trust it not to do this a lot more than I trust glorified popularity contests.

    When I have time to watch the videos maybe.


    I would recommend starting with the ones by Liana Kerzner and workingyour way through from there personally out of all those I linked she's the best at reaching across the aisle.

    2 Months ago
    tnu
     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA


    Hmm. This one actually convinced me of your point. I'm not going to waste time commenting on the others because some of them make their point poorly and some of them prattle on for ages without actually saying much of anything which caused me to lose interest.

    I've always had an issue with governments infringing on any kind of freedom of speech, but never really considered it a problem for smaller communities to do so within themselves.

    2 Months ago
    Moonray
     

    I'll take it!

    2 Months ago
    tnu
     

    I still think civility can be maintained even when saying things that may offend though.

    2 Months ago
    Moonray
     

    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

    Sooner or later, someone needs to make an executive decision, a judgement, a ruling on what is and isn't acceptable. And no matter what you do, you will find people who don't like it. Whoever is in this position needs to weigh the pros and the cons, and "people liking it" is only one aspect of that decision.

    Most people didn't want to end slavery. Most people didn't want to end segregation. After Hitler killed a couple hundred dissenting voices during the Night of Long Knives, he ran virtually unopposed and ruled Germany with an iron fist. If the allies didn't stop him, let's just say the world would look a lot different, today. In the past, history wasn't so kind to those being oppressed. We wiped out the Native Americans, from 15,000,000 down to just thousands. Wolves were hunted to near extinction in America.

    I think a good leader has a strong moral conviction that leans on the side of what's best for the longevity of a good and vibrant community. A lesser will simply do what's popular, even if it puts the strength of the community at risk.

    2 Months ago
    mariomguy
     

    Mguy what you described can pretty much be applied to any system anyway.

    2 Months ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    Which makes it less a guide specifically for this forum and one for governing the universe.

    A guide almost nobody follows.

    2 Months ago
    mariomguy
     

    But ya this is a forum for one thing, and for another in general determining a system democratic or not is about harm reduction and while at the same time trying to find what's best for longevity and a vibrant community as you put it. There is nothing mutually exclusive about trying to give people what they want but also trying to genuinely do what is best. Thus The "guide is rarely followed" because there is no perfection and there is no one easy answer to have the perfect system.

    However that's kind of irrelevant to this thread I think, because since Xhin presented a bad solution in going based off chance and potentially allowing one person to come away with his way at the expense of everyone else I'm trying to offer something better and since this is a small forum I think there's much less to risk with implementing anything sort of resembling democracy instead of what Xhin presented.

    2 Months ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    The judgement depends on the case. Unless there's a specific case we can all discuss, I can't just give a blanket statement.

    A lot of people thought it was annoying when I brought up the faults of The Last of Us, but now a lot of people have warmed to my side of the argument, or at least admits there is merit to it. If there is indeed merit to an idea, one that can be backed up with evidence, that's good reason for it to be permissible in discussion.

    Compare that with a discussion with someone I know in RL who said the reason other countries have single payer systems that work is because they're not multiracial, saying "it's easier for people to pay for others when they look like them." That is absolutely offensive and has no merit. Canada is even more multicultural than America with a functioning single payer system that surpasses ours, despite its flaws, and in many countries foreigners are given better treatment and costs than people covered with private care over here. This guy insisted he was right, and now we are no longer permitted to have political discussions in our group.

    Some things can be blanketed for sure. Discussion promoting racism, sexism, violence, discussion that attempts to dismiss ideas of merit on flawed logic, homophobic and hate speech, that has no place here. Discussion of religion is OK, but it needs to be meaningful discussion, not hate speech. True, freedom of speech might allow for hate, but none of those discussions would be useful, anyways. If it's offensive just for the purpose of being offensive, that's really not OK.

    2 Months ago
    mariomguy
     

    TLDR - If the conversation is useful and has merit, I'd lean towards accepting it. But if it just devolves into bashing and hate, offense for the purpose of offense, that's not useful to anyone.

    2 Months ago
    mariomguy
     

    I mostly agree when it comes to forums like this, you might remember me as Knuckles. But to even get to the point where that's possible here apparently we have to jump through all of these hurdles and select the right system somehow. It would have been normal if the staff collective simply knew what they were doing and if they actually agreed on the rules or where something is just bad for the community.

    2 Months ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    Staff can't single you out for simply having an opinion they don't like. It's OK to have a stance that is not common, be sure to focus on its merits when discussing. But if you're not contributing meaningful discussion and all you're doing is offending people, especially if tensions are running high and the situation needs to chill, clear warnings and temporary bans do make sense.

    2 Months ago
    mariomguy
     

    That's not even what I'm concerned with right now, I'm concerned with even getting to a point where problem posts are even consistently dealt with. I hope we're at least approaching that point. Nuance is great too but the thing is people like Famov and Xhin on and off may get too caught up in that and decide to not do anything a bit too often or decide to act against the entirely wrong people for whatever reason.

    2 Months ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    Merit is not nuanced. Every single piece of criticism I had about TLoU came from the gameplay, all the criticism against me was pointed on the fact that I didn't play the game myself. But that criticism was not enough to dismiss my points, nor did anyone bother to actually address it. In that example, my criticism had merit, which went completely unaddressed. Despite pissing of pretty much every single person on the site, the merit clause protects me. I made a LOT of legitimate points. You can go find hundreds of analytical breakdowns on Youtube saying the same things from people who played the game, even people who said it was their favorite.

    A merit-based system is really the way to go. As long as mods can adhere to it, it shouldn't be a problem. And if anyone has a problem discussing ideas with merit and evidence worth discussing, then maybe they shouldn't join an internet forum.

    2 Months ago
    mariomguy
     

    Reply to: IMPORTANT: Community feedback model

    Username
    Password