this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
9 points (100.0% liked)

The Agora

1634 readers
3 users here now

In the spirit of the Ancient Greek Agora, we invite you to join our vibrant community - a contemporary meeting place for the exchange of ideas, inspired by the practices of old. Just as the Agora served as the heart of public life in Ancient Athens, our platform is designed to be the epicenter of meaningful discussion and thought-provoking dialogue.

Here, you are encouraged to speak your mind, share your insights, and engage in stimulating discussions. This is your opportunity to shape and influence our collective journey, just like the free citizens of Athens who gathered at the Agora to make significant decisions that impacted their society.

You're not alone in your quest for knowledge and understanding. In this community, you'll find support from like-minded individuals who, like you, are eager to explore new perspectives, challenge their preconceptions, and grow intellectually.

Remember, every voice matters and your contribution can make a difference. We believe that through open dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to discovery, we can foster a community that embodies the democratic spirit of the Agora in our modern world.

Community guidelines
New posts should begin with one of the following:

Only moderators may create a [Vote] post.

Voting History & Results

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
9
[Discussion] Vote mechanics (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What kind of threshold should a vote have to pass before being implemented? Do we really want to be making changes based on a vote that only got one "Aye"? Ten Ayes? Over 50% of the user base?

What kind of vote engagement can we reasonably expect to achieve? Is it actually likely that 50% of the user base will engage with any particular vote? Are there any useful presidents out there?

Who should be responsible for counting the votes when they're over? Perhaps the OP tallies the votes and edits the post?

Is there an easy test the mods can apply to a tallied vote to allow them to check whether it's passed? Something that is not open to interpretation and results in a clear directive to make a change?

I'm also kind of testing out this discussion format as a way of generating things to vote on i.e DISCUSSION > POLL > VOTE seems to make sense.

We'll see :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'm doubtful a quorum of 50% would happen, I imagine the majority of users will not participate in voting. I think if we set that as the threshold, nothing would ever get done. We might as well shutter the community. Maybe that many would vote if it were a defederation issue, but I still doubt it.

I think the proposer should tally votes. It should be easy to check the OPs math and bring up any discrepancies.

I like the discussion-> poll -> vote idea, but I'm not sure if most proposals will be large enough to require it.

Finally what about time limits? I've seen others says votes should be up for 3 days, or even 7 days which seems like a lot to me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Regarding timescales, I added this to your other post but I think that would be perfect for testing out polling.

Hows that going to work anyway? There's no native poll option is there?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm thinking we need a bot to handle all this. Check for quorum, track vote timelines, tally votes after it closes, administer polls, probably other stuff I'm missing

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, a few people have mentioned this and it would seem to make sense.

There are a few Lemmy bots on GitHub https://github.com/topics/lemmy-bot, I guess that would need involvement from the mods.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is there something that handles nuanced option taking? like more than 2 options ... like i suggested in a separate comment, systemic consensing?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We need to construct a vote ballot, then use up voting on the options you approve of.

This is approval voting and has excellent behaviors compared to most other voting systems

Ideally, voting would happen in a community that only allows local users to subscribe or vote.

If that's not possible in Lemmy, at the moment, something with access to the database could do the checking and report the results, I think.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Actually, i like weighted disapproval voting, because it counteracts mob approval following (better word?) to some extent. People are incentivised to think about how much any option (and there could be silly ones just for the sake of it) would go against their favours. I'd consider it intellectually mature if people could collectively establish such a system. But doesn't look like it ...

One thing that would be nice to have is a "neutral/abstine" vote. While this can be substituted by commenting, the latter would allow double voting.