Achieving democracy in forums

[syrwong]

Recent events which started off with the usage of a word, and escalated into a schism and ousting of some popular members suggest something has to be done to prevent such huge waste of energy in the future, and not just leaving it like that. Any unresolved issue will weaken the community. I believe there must be a good way to handle such internal conflict wisely so that there is cohesion within the community to face external challenges.

Just by observation it is easy to see that debate is not the way to resolve conflicts. Debating only strengthens the opinions of the opposing parties. This is because stubbornness is human nature. In spite of we are supposedly more awakened, we lack the open-mindedness to thoroughly consider the worthiness of others opinions. Thus all debates can do is escalating the emotion without leading to a conclusion.

I think the solution lies in objectifying the decision process of the forum. The normal way of making a decision, as with almost all forums is a totalitarian process, it is done by a few and the members are generally not consulted. This is efficient but lacking the realization that the members are the very life of the forum, and also it assumes the infallibility of a small group of individuals. The good alternative way is to make members partially responsible for important decisions and resolving contentious issues. In this way even if a decision goes against the will of a group, there will not arise a overwhelming sense of injustice, and the group will stay in a positive manner.

The implementation of members’ participation in making decisions is to be a kind of polling. The internet technology allows this to be possible and easy, and if designed properly, eliminates the possibility of rigging. We can make democracy work well (perhaps better than all world governments)

I do not profess to know a perfect/good design of polling, but I think it is the answer and may become popular with forums in the future (If we indeed have a bright and free future). I invite members to support this idea and offer suggestions.

I can offer an idea. Roughly all decisions are simply a Yes or No. Each member can cast 1 vote and their name will appear for transparency and checking. Moderators votes should be counted with weights, as their responsibility is greater and they have considered the issue more carefully and with broader view. Founder can have an even higher weight and set to infinity (nor recommended) if he/she wishes. The weight for a moderator should be at least 10, or a certain % of size of membership, but not too big such as 50 to avoid them having pressure to conform and thus acting in concert to achieve a desired result. This is just my humble rough idea and I won’t go further, because I have not thought further and do not know if many of you will support my idea.

Moderators please do not feel this as diminishing. The history of this forum stimulated this idea. This is a better alternative to lengthy and nonproductive debates. This is also what I hope the future direction of all great forums should be --- to adopt some kind of democracy in which members can participate in important issues, so as to ensure the healthy growth of the forums. An alternative view of this is that members should not only contribute with information and ideas, but also with the operation of the forum.

[13th Warrior]

I don't think we need democracy...

Better team building and problem solving skills is my recommendation.

[syrwong]

I don't think we need democracy...

Better team building and problem solving skills is my recommendation.

I envisage in our future society there will be a different form of democracy in which all can participate in everyday politics, and not relying on a intermediary to do it for them, such as the president of the state. This is because this person or group can lie, be manipulated, and even acting not in their interest. Thus this thought. Your suggestion is tentamounts to saying the president should select a better team , and learn better solving skills.

[TargeT]

Democracy is tyrany of the masses, it's only touted as "freedom" or a "solution" because people are so easily manipulated that if you get a large group together chances of you tricking the majority of them into voting your way are very good (espeically when you are aware of the fundamental flaws of humanity)

Republics are better, but that only slows the above proccess as eventually the "people" will not do their duty & defend their republic; rather they will trade it for "security" (mostly out of fear & lazyness).

[13th Warrior]

I don't think we need democracy...

Better team building and problem solving skills is my recommendation.

I envisage in our future society there will be a different form of democracy in which all can participate in everyday politics, and not relying on a intermediary to do it for them, such as the president of the state. This is because this person or group can lie, be manipulated, and even acting not in their interest. Thus this thought. Your suggestion is tentamounts to saying the president should select a better team , and learn better solving skills.

I am not suggesting better presidents or team members; everyone has their own uniqueness to bring too the group. I am suggesting that group members need better coaching in conflict resolution in regards to team building and problem solving; one tenet is to focus on the behavior and not the person...

[pickle]

My vote is for no democracy, and lots of oxymorons.

[syrwong]

Democracy is tyrany of the masses, it's only touted as "freedom" or a "solution" because people are so easily manipulated that if you get a large group together chances of you tricking the majority of them into voting your way are very good (espeically when you are aware of the fundamental flaws of humanity)

Republics are better, but that only slows the above proccess as eventually the "people" will not do their duty & defend their republic; rather they will trade it for "security" (mostly out of fear & lazyness).

I agree to some extent. I am not a believer of all present form of democracy either. Real 'democracy' or 'freedom' is when everyone can and does participate in everyday and all politics, things that concern their welfare. May be the title should be changed to "Achieving members' participation in forum politics"

[TWINCANS]

The idea has merit. Except it's not our house and we don't make the rules.

[spiritguide]

Consensus would eliminate disparity. IMHO

[TargeT]

I agree to some extent. I am not a believer of all present form of democracy either. Real 'democracy' or 'freedom' is when everyone can and does participate in everyday and all politics, things that concern their welfare. May be the title should be changed to "Achieving members' participation in forum politics"

sounds like you'd be interested in www.atticus1.org that's the goal at that site.

idealy I agree with you; however my faith in humanity is not that strong right now....

[Daft Ada]

God here we go again, it's all been said before. This is not a democracy so whatever you think is a good idea will not be implemented so why waste time talking about it? How would you like someone you invite into your home to suddenly start making suggestions to you how to run it?

[Whiskey_Mystic]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

-Winston Churchhill

[TWINCANS]

I agree to some extent. I am not a believer of all present form of democracy either. Real 'democracy' or 'freedom' is when everyone can and does participate in everyday and all politics, things that concern their welfare. May be the title should be changed to "Achieving members' participation in forum politics"

sounds like you'd be interested in www.atticus1.org that's the goal at that site.

idealy I agree with you; however my faith in humanity is not that strong right now....

There are others too. Maybe with a bit better cred, nexus for one but not that name again please. :rolleyes:

[Unified Serenity]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There will always be opposing views on forums. There will always be "stars" who garner a lot of support by their very presence and little quips they posts which are often humorous and can be biting at the same time and other members who do not hold the charisma but contribute far more thoughtful posts without replying to every thread with little quips, thus their comments might range in the hundreds, while another poster who seems more active has thousands of comments, but have they really contributed more salient ideas?

I think the only way to run a forum is to clearly state the rules, enforce them equally, and allow for warnings and direction. If a member refuses to comply for whatever reason and is given a few days off so be it. If that person chooses to escalate the situation and turn the forum into a bickering place and inciting hundreds of comments about the situation then the mods must make a decision as to how long the vacation needs to be. If the instigator decides to leave, then the members need to let it go and move on.

Thus, if you are not happy with how a forum is run and think you can do a better job start your own and have fun with those who are going to insist you do it their way, and stir up a hornets nest to eat away at your precious volunteer's (mods and members) time and create havoc in a once fairly peaceful community.

[syrwong]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There will always be opposing views on forums. There will always be "stars" who garner a lot of support by their very presence and little quips they posts which are often humorous and can be biting at the same time and other members who do not hold the charisma but contribute far more thoughtful posts without replying to every thread with little quips, thus their comments might range in the hundreds, while another poster who seems more active has thousands of comments, but have they really contributed more salient ideas?

I think the only way to run a forum is to clearly state the rules, enforce them equally, and allow for warnings and direction. If a member refuses to comply for whatever reason and is given a few days off so be it. If that person chooses to escalate the situation and turn the forum into a bickering place and inciting hundreds of comments about the situation then the mods must make a decision as to how long the vacation needs to be. If the instigator decides to leave, then the members need to let it go and move on.

Thus, if you are not happy with how a forum is run and think you can do a better job start your own and have fun with those who are going to insist you do it their way, and stir up a hornets nest to eat away at your precious volunteer's (mods and members) time and create havoc in a once fairly peaceful community.

Is democracy such a bad word? May be its meaning has been twisted many times. I am happy to change the word as I mentioned above. My real intention can simply be put as:

Can polling be used as a tool not just to collect opinions, but as a mechanism for members to build the forum structurally (be involved in its politics)?

If members think it is best left to the top persons, it is OK, but I think it is a narrow mined view, that the property belongs to a single person. No one ever owns anything in the awakened view.

[Unified Serenity]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There will always be opposing views on forums. There will always be "stars" who garner a lot of support by their very presence and little quips they posts which are often humorous and can be biting at the same time and other members who do not hold the charisma but contribute far more thoughtful posts without replying to every thread with little quips, thus their comments might range in the hundreds, while another poster who seems more active has thousands of comments, but have they really contributed more salient ideas?

I think the only way to run a forum is to clearly state the rules, enforce them equally, and allow for warnings and direction. If a member refuses to comply for whatever reason and is given a few days off so be it. If that person chooses to escalate the situation and turn the forum into a bickering place and inciting hundreds of comments about the situation then the mods must make a decision as to how long the vacation needs to be. If the instigator decides to leave, then the members need to let it go and move on.

Thus, if you are not happy with how a forum is run and think you can do a better job start your own and have fun with those who are going to insist you do it their way, and stir up a hornets nest to eat away at your precious volunteer's (mods and members) time and create havoc in a once fairly peaceful community.

Is democracy such a bad word? May be its meaning has been twisted many times. I am happy to change the word as I mentioned above. My real intention can simply be put as:

Can polling be used as a tool not just to collect opinions, but as a mechanism for members to build the forum structurally (be involved in its politics)?

If members think it is best left to the top persons, it is OK, but I think it is a narrow mined view, that the property belongs to a single person. No one ever owns anything in the awakened view.

The problem with such consensus is what information is available, how much truth is known and the "star" power that can be employed to control the forum by an elite mindset. If you do not understand how this can be abused, I doubt I can explain it to you. Many in the alternative community dislike authority and will voice their opinions about it whenever they feel it is being used. Nonetheless, I'd rather see Avalon running well into the future for us than turned into a graveyard of a few hangers on who managed to run off any who dislike turmoil and manipulation. I think for the most part the mods have displayed a willingness to not be too heavy handed by allowing continued threads which revolve around recent disputes.

[Daft Ada]

As I said in my post this has all been discussed before, it can't possibly work because of human nature.
There are always on any forum little groups of people who form little cliques if there was a poll on anything to do with the forum or it's members they would be pm'ing each other like mad to arrange the vote.
If an indavidual on the forum had upset one of the members of one of the little groups, over anything at some time, if he or she then crossed the line over something else and their being sent on holliday became a poll, the Pm's would again be smoking while the previously aggrieved tried to get all his or her mates to vote the member out for payback.
I could go on all night. The system can only work if everyone was perfectly trutheful and honest and open,
My god I wish they were because then there wouldn't be any problems in the first place.

[syrwong]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There will always be opposing views on forums. There will always be "stars" who garner a lot of support by their very presence and little quips they posts which are often humorous and can be biting at the same time and other members who do not hold the charisma but contribute far more thoughtful posts without replying to every thread with little quips, thus their comments might range in the hundreds, while another poster who seems more active has thousands of comments, but have they really contributed more salient ideas?

I think the only way to run a forum is to clearly state the rules, enforce them equally, and allow for warnings and direction. If a member refuses to comply for whatever reason and is given a few days off so be it. If that person chooses to escalate the situation and turn the forum into a bickering place and inciting hundreds of comments about the situation then the mods must make a decision as to how long the vacation needs to be. If the instigator decides to leave, then the members need to let it go and move on.

Thus, if you are not happy with how a forum is run and think you can do a better job start your own and have fun with those who are going to insist you do it their way, and stir up a hornets nest to eat away at your precious volunteer's (mods and members) time and create havoc in a once fairly peaceful community.

Is democracy such a bad word? May be its meaning has been twisted many times. I am happy to change the word as I mentioned above. My real intention can simply be put as:

Can polling be used as a tool not just to collect opinions, but as a mechanism for members to build the forum structurally (be involved in its politics)?

If members think it is best left to the top persons, it is OK, but I think it is a narrow mined view, that the property belongs to a single person. No one ever owns anything in the awakened view.

The problem with such consensus is what information is available, how much truth is known and the "star" power that can be employed to control the forum by an elite mindset. If you do not understand how this can be abused, I doubt I can explain it to you. Many in the alternative community dislike authority and will voice their opinions about it whenever they feel it is being used. Nonetheless, I'd rather see Avalon running well into the future for us than turned into a graveyard of a few hangers on who managed to run off any who dislike turmoil and manipulation. I think for the most part the mods have displayed a willingness to not be too heavy handed by allowing continued threads which revolve around recent disputes.


This is not a thread about recent disputes (only inspired by it). This is an attempt to find a way to settle all disputes readily and in a manner allowing diversity, because this "Enhanced Poll" sets up a rule too. Those who are defeated by the "Enhanced Poll" know that this is FAIR by the rule, and are likely to stay and be very constructive. I do think the method of weighted votes is feasible and can apply to a political system, but perhaps I am too idealistic.