The Agora

1600 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:

[Question]
[Discussion]
[Poll]

Only moderators may create a [Vote] post.

Voting History & Results

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[Discussion] Vote mechanics (self.agora)

submitted 1 year ago by ProstheticBrain to c/agora

50 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

[–] carbon_based 1 points 1 year 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?

[–] tcely 1 points 1 year 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.

[–] carbon_based 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.