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

The Agora

1598 readers
1 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] nonfuinoncuro 18 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The current aye/nay system is cluttered and clunky. How about we allow comments in [discussion] posts and then have a separate [vote] post with a single comment for each option so people can choose up/down/abstain? Then nobody has to count anything, human or bot, or worry about typos, formatting, sarcasm, etc.

I also propose a minimum of 3 days, maximum of 1 week per each [vote], no time limits for discussion. You can choose when to start the official [vote] after discussion starts.

[–] Spluk42 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think the vote posts might be better off in their own community outside the agora, like c/pollingplace or something. Discussions and topics that meet a threshold here are moved to that community and voting goes for a week. Each week the current slate of pending votes is posted and voting can occur with upvotes and downvotes on an aye, nay, and abstention comments inside the post.

Can a mod/admin/whatever pull who upvoted what? Somehow Lemmy is tracking it since it knows what you've upvoted. But it might make sense for the first couple of votes to do some real data analysis on them (who/what instances, age of account, average post quantity voted which way) to determine an algorithm that minimizes brigading while allowing everyone a voice.

[–] nonfuinoncuro 3 points 1 year ago

Each week the current slate of pending votes is posted and voting can occur with upvotes and downvotes on an aye, nay, and abstention comments inside the post.

I really like this, helps keep it neat and easy to find each question on the "ballot" which will have a natural time limit

[–] sneakyninjapants 3 points 1 year ago

Can a mod/admin/whatever pull who upvoted what?

This will make or break this proposal if we want to limit based on sh.itjust.works users, account age, etc. If that exists, it sounds like a great option to me.

[–] annegreen 5 points 1 year ago

I think that [discussion] preceding [vote] makes good sense. I’d add that [vote] posts should link to their respective [discussion] posts.

[–] benjaminedwardwebb 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like the idea of using lemmy's builtin voting mechanism.

I think for yes or no voting questions, it would be simplest to express all options with a single comment that is an affirmative statement on whatever is up for vote. Then each user action (pressing the upvote button, pressing the downvote button, or reading the post and pressing no button) maps exactly onto the vote a person casts.

[–] sneakyninjapants 4 points 1 year ago

I think this would be useful too, but currently that way of voting raises the issue that anyone outside this instance could vote on that issue as well and there would be no way of determining how many up/down/abstain votes came from users of this instance alone. A bot that could filter users of this instance would solve that though. If a separate community was created solely for voting (as opposed to discussion), there might be a way to make it private for users of this instance which could solve the problem also.

[–] carbon_based 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe add a period of time between closure of discussion (which may take longer on complex topics) -- and voting? So that people have time to see it all, and perhaps even make summaries? With several options, those should be well composed: Heading - explanation (links to relevant comments), each in a comment to the poll. ~~Commenting in the poll disallowed if possible~~ (abstension, well yeah ...). I like this.

[–] ProstheticBrain 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I really like how simple the single post up/downvote thing is.

I guess my only concern is that it hides who's voted, which would make it harder to weed out bots/shitbags.

[–] nonfuinoncuro 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some people want a secret ballot. Shitbags deserve a vote too 🤷🏻‍♂️

It's not perfect, but like you said, it's simple enough, and IMHO it's better than our current system

[–] Hagarashi8 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whole problem with that system is that people is up to restrict other instances from voting and that's when it stops working at all.

[–] sneakyninjapants 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah I detailed that issue too. If we do indeed want to restrict voting to users of this instance, the fact that anyone in the fediverse can up/downvote on a comment makes it a non-starter without some additional way to filter the vote to only the users here.

[–] imaqtpie 1 points 1 year ago

This is a fantastic idea. Not sure about the time limits but the [vote] post seems like it would work really well.