Open + Captcha
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
17 points (100.0% liked)
The Agora
1596 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
That sounds fair. Blacklisting services, or even worse particular emails, is work for nothing because you have infinite amount of aliases with Gmail, and it kinda kills even need in temp email for trolling, and you don't want whitelist cause it'll hurt users of not so popular services. Invites just sound not so good of a system for choosing worthy, it's just, i want democracy and not elite ruling this instance.
Perhaps add explainer:
This poll is based on the preceeding discussion: [link]. Please make yourself familiar with the discussion before voting.
There is a choice between several options.
Upvote those options you would agree with, downvote those you would not agree with.
(comment to abstain? I know this could be abused. ...)
Add an option: "Do not change the current mode of registration."
... and i like to edit: Some information on how the final choice will be made may also be helpful (this could differ by subject): "The option on which the ratio of upvotes [(sum-of-votes -- downvotes) / sum-of-votes] exceeds that of all others by at least 1.5 : 1 will be implemented; should none meet that target no change will be made."
I like some of those suggestions. However, I don't think down voting or abstaining should be supported. You either support an option by up voting or you take no action.
Approval voting systems have well studied behaviors and we should not deviate from that without a compelling reason.
Every approval / upvote is a distinct user endorsement for an option. The option with the most users endorsing it should be selected when that number exceeds 51% of the active users set we decide on.
That could be another way to gauge the outcome. I just suggested to get into account the actual disapproval also (if we were that advanced, i'd wish we could have weighted disapproval voting anyway, but i can't hope that people understand the advantages of that). Why would my way of counting the approval ratio rather than approval-only be of any disadvantage? I mean, that way it would include the total number of participants as well, and an approval ratio would be a more robust decision-maker than just a fixed goal of absolute agreement. And why should i not want to improve on stuff? :-)
But anyway, this was meant to suggest how to improve the ballot itself (after all, that's the topic of the discussion here). So aside from how ever votes are to be counted, i suggest to include all that information in the ballot.
Why would my way of counting the approval ratio rather than approval-only be of any disadvantage?
That's just how voting systems work. Even seemingly insignificant changes to the algorithm can have outsized impacts on how well it performs.
Plurality versus Approval is a specific example of this. Just changing "choose one" to "choose as many as you approve of" significantly impacts the amount of data that's captured and often the outcome because of the effects on voters' behaviors.
I liked the suggestion of more information. When we have it all figured out those details should be included as you suggested.
Thanks for the recognition!
It is all true that different ways of evaluation will lead to different results. That can be understood though, and i think that i can wrap my mind around the maths of it (yet perhaps not everyone could, no offence intended). Some ways are more appropriate in certain context, some are inherently unfair, etc. -- My suggestion should have been meant towards more accuracy ...
But maybe let's forget about this entirely, and look here: Ranked Choice Voting https://sh.itjust.works/post/311690
RCV/IRV has been a scam for more than a century. Please look into how that was invented and how it actually performed. More than half the places that tried it actually removed it.
I don't know why people keep being fooled by complexity, but they do.
... aha ... now slowly i get some dissonance. You just advertised a system that doesn't count dissenting votes, therefore making it impossible to find the real acceptance of some choice. I may look into how Ranked Choice was "invented" (hey, anyone could come up with such a thing). But please stop to belittle people just because you seem to not grasp some modest complexity.
I can see for example, that not being able to rank options equally, will give an advantage to that which is listed first on the ballot. That is easy to see for me. My mind makes pictures.
If you like pictures, there is a visualization of the RCV/IRV flaws.
https://fosstodon.org/users/tcely/statuses/110291193062264304
If you would want to be cooperative then you would have followed my suggestion and we would maybe have a fruitful pondering. Good day.
You just advertised a system that doesn’t count dissenting votes, therefore making it impossible to find the real acceptance of some choice.
Likewise, RCV doesn't count all of the voter's rankings, making it impossible to find the true preferred candidate from the published election results.
This is an old thread, so it would not really make sense to repeat all that i have posted later. In short, yes if you take the counting methods that throw out and re-arrange rankings just for the sake of getting a number above 50 "percent", as in "automated run-off". I didn't even think that someone would do such a thing because of course that would skew the result. Until i saw some (US-american what else) how RCV is ostensibly bad, which were made in a very deceptive way. Ranked Choice is a voting method, not the method in which votes are counted!
This comes from a country that elieves there are to be always only two candidates -- which isn't true in real-world situations. I suggested to count all the rankings, and to accept that there might be a minority-winner.
Down voting and abstaining have been studied (and used), too:
Personally I can't think of how voting can be done cleanly within just Lemmy yet. It seems like there should be a special type of post developed for it.
I see a couple issues with your proposal. Actual discussion can either drown out the options to be voted, especially the ones that are being downvoted. Second, the snowball effect would be even worse than comment-based voting, as the earliest upvoted options would be on the top of the thread.
The discussion should really happen in another post before the voting. Possibly even in another community.
The order you see the options that exist on the ballot should not matter.
This proposal doesn't involve down voting any options at all.
I agree that order shouldn't matter, but I strongly believe it would matter given the fact that everyone knows that upvoted posts appear at the top by default. The proposal doesn't address downvoting, but it will happen anyway and affect the outcome because of the ordering issue. Discussions will happen inside the voting thread even if it shouldn't happen, as well.
You can try to game the vote with discussions or down votes, but I think moderation actions should be used to punish that kind of thing
It doesn't change anything if the options are reordered, as a voter you still need to read all of them to decide to support or not.
Open + Email blacklist
Closed + Email Whitelist
view more: next ›