jump to content
my subreddits
more »
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
5 points (78% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

metanarchism

subscribeSubscribe Nowunsubscribe1,370 readers readers
(~25 online) users here now
A place for discussions on bans, changes and whatnot of /r/anarchism by its active anarchists who have an interest in the well-being of the community.
Relevant topics:
  • Discussion & Voting on the addition or removal of mods.
  • Discussion & Voting on the rules of banination
  • Suggestions for new improvements in the stylesheet
Transparency:
  1. New to anarchism? Check out /r/Anarchy101
  2. Confederation of Anarchist Reddits
Home hot new controversial top
created by dbzer0a community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
4
5
6
submitted by needstrangersadvice
It is important that voting users be familiar with the issues they are expected to vote on. I believe our current policy is adequate in limiting new user accounts from manipulating votes, but is inadequate in limiting knee-jerk participation from long defunct users.
To that end, I propose we amend our voting eligibility process from:
voting eligibility is limited to anarchists who have been active in /r/anarchism for at least two months, and "active" is defined as having at least ten comments in /r/anarchism.
To:
voting eligibility is limited to anarchists who have been active in /r/anarchism for at least two months. "Active" being defined as having at least ten comment during that two month period- and no more than one month, or 30 days, of inactivity thereafter. Users away for more than the period are considered having lapsed into inactive status.
EDIT1: Users who wish to vote on an issue must have participated in either met@ or r/@ within 30 days prior to the proposal at hand. Posting "day of" will not count. Voters who are no longer considered "new", but have lapsed into inactive status, can simply resume participation and their voting rights will be restored going forward.
All friendly amendments welcome for consideration.
all 43 comments
[–]Vindalfr [score hidden]  (5 children)
I like the idea, but can't support the rule as written.
I want more people here more consistently and I don't think that setting up another speed bump is going to facilitate that.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (3 children)
I don't see this as a "speed bump". The people who want to be here already are, or are able to join in simply by participating the same way they normally would.
Say a new user finds r/@, wants to make it "better", and comes to met@. They're probably already eligible to vote at that point, or on the cusp of it. This amendment literally only filters out older users who don't participate anymore.
If they wanted to resume participation, they're only being cut out of a single round of voting. They can come back "into the fold", and there is no harm or foul.
In light of the recent flood of disingenuous votes, brigading, and shitpost/spam submissions, this is more akin to laying sandbags and hoping the levy holds.
[–]Vindalfr [score hidden]  (2 children)
Like it said, I don't disagree with the reasoning, I'm just not sure that instituting an exclusionary rule will address the issue of vote manipulation.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)
I think this is an attempt at addressing it, and I don't see it as exclusionary. People who participate so infrequently can't reasonably be expected to be abreast of current events, or understand the context from which a proposal or ban might spring. No one who is already a participant here would be excluded. Even if they were an infrequent user who desired to participate, they would at most be held out of a single round of voting.
[–]Egotisticallama [score hidden]  (0 children)
Agreed.
[–]flaxrabbit [score hidden]  (0 children)
Support
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (24 children)
Support the friendly amendment. What if I don't like the content for 30 days?
Okay, so let's say I didn't comment in /r/anarchism for 30 days (but commented in /r/metanarchism). Do I have to make another 10 comments in /r/anarchism and wait 60 days before I can vote again?
@@@@@
The friendly amendment which I support is that people who have lapsed into inactivity need to be active 30 days before voting.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (13 children)
In regards to your edit:
If you had moved from "new" to "active" to "inactive", you'd be ineligible to vote unless you had participated in met@ or r/@ within 30 days of the proposal you wished to vote on.
I wouldn't consider you "new" anymore, so no to this part:
o I have to make another 10 comments in /r/anarchism and wait 60 days before I can vote again?
But you would have lapsed into inactive status, and would need to resume participation in order to vote.
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (12 children)
I'm not arguing to remain inactive while retaining suffrage. I didn't understand the implications of your proposal regarding lapsed to re-activation.
I generally support a 30-day wait on participation in /r/metanarchism except for the possibility of perceived extreme proposals or accountability actions which would exclude older users for 30 days. Is there an amendment that would address the concern of such proposals (I can't really think of an example)?
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (11 children)
Without an example of what your describing, I'm having a hard time visualizing it as problematic. Get back to me on this?
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (10 children)
Here's an okay example: what if a user advocated rape as a form of torture, and I wanted to ban them but had only been lurking for 30 days until reading that comment. What I really mean to address is proposals that the community is unlikely to bring up that a lapsed user might feel passionately about. Although we haven't addressed this yet, I support your friendly amendment as it stands with that reservation.
[–]flaxrabbit [score hidden]  (5 children)
I think you could still propose an action be taken (just as now brand new accounts can propose actions), but you wouldn't have a vote.
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (4 children)
What about people not privileged not access the internet on a regular basis, but enough to give us quality submissions? I don't have that problem because I live near a library, but others might not be so lucky.
[–]flaxrabbit [score hidden]  (2 children)
For me it comes down to who we consider an active participant in the community. If someone doesn't post or comment for a month are they still an active community member? Do they have the necessary context to be able to take a position on current on-goings?
I don't think this is an ideal solution, but I think it's better than allowing non-participants to dictate how those actively involved run the place. I feel like a lot of people right now are saying "the troll should stay, just toughen up", and then they peace out and leave us to deal with the ongoing problem.
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (0 children)
A lot could happen in 30 days. That is why I think this proposal actually helps people contribute more without being to unreasonable.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)
Boom.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)
If you go greater than 30 day intervals with access to the internet, regular participation in an attempt at online governance might not be for you. If they saw objectionable content they could address it via other means, or make the proposal addressing it themselves. They'd have regained voting rights for any issue after that, barring they didn't go another 30 days without participating (repeat ad nauseam)
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (3 children)
Then you could report that user, or message a mod/active user, or any other of the many ways we might address rape advocacy. I still don't see how the community would miss something so major, yet a new user would just hone in on it and be held back due to process. I'm open to consideration, I just think your grasping a bit with this one.
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (2 children)
Well, I mean something less major, like something we would all not recognize due to our privileges. But yeah, messaging the mods alleviates my concerns, so therefore I stand aside because of my concerns for internet access privilege. But you know what? This is an internet community, so people *should be on here at least 5 comments a month to be able to vote. I actually motion to support your proposal.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (1 child)
Thank you for discussing your concerns with me. I'm glad we could address them via amendment, and look forward to this kind of dialogue becoming "the norm".
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (0 children)
It was the norm outside of this forum.
We have to pull ourselves up.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (9 children)
Then comment as such, or participate in met@ more, or submit content you do like. I guess this establishes some obligations on users who want voting eligibility, but it certainly doesn't set the bar very high. This comment of yours, for example, would be adequate to keep you "active" for 30 days.
Is your opposition principled, or would you consider switching your vote to abstention?
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (8 children)
I'm not opposing out of principles or morality, just concerns about how this rule would be applied. I am more than willing to stand aside or support if my concerns are addressed, and as I write this I still oppose until we thresh out the process a bit more.
What are the requirements for users who have "lapsed into inactive status"? I believe that those requirements should be different than a two month waiting period. The only problem I see with shortening the wait for lapsed users is people abusing socks.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (7 children)
I am more than willing to stand aside or support if my concerns are addressed, and as I write this I still oppose until we thresh out the process a bit more.
Totally cool.
What would you say to an amendment outlining that participation must have been within the 30 days prior to the proposal you wish to vote on? This prevents people from posting some comment like "This", or "Cool" in r/@ in order to vote on a proposal in met@ the same day.
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (6 children)
If we're going to selectively acknowledge posts as a prerequisite for /r/metanarchism participation, we have to thresh out what constitutes a quality submission and what doesn't. I agree with your friendly amendment as it applies to lapsed users, not newer ones.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (5 children)
You're seeing the trees, not the forest. I meant that commenting day of wouldn't end your ineligibility due to lapsed participation. I'm not calling for:
what constitutes a quality submission and what doesn't.
I just meant that participation must have been within the 30 days prior to the vote at hand. There isn't a way to know what is or isn't comment chaff meant to circumvent rules, but we'll do the best we can with what we've got. Applying the amendment, let me know what you think.
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (4 children)
You're seeing the trees, not the forest.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't have any idea how.
I don't understand how "outlining that participation must have been within the 30 dyas prior to the proposal" would prevent comments like "this" or "cool" in /r/@.
Actually I misread you (didn't see you write against commenting on "the same day") and support do not actively oppose your friendly amendment. I thought you were saying not to count comments such as "this" or "cool" as real participation.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (3 children)
I don't understand how "outlining that participation must have been within the 30 dyas prior to the proposal" would prevent comments like "this" or "cool" in /r/@.
It wouldn't. Those were examples of someone hypothetically posting the day of the proposal in order to circumvent inactive status.
The "forest and trees" reference is a Southeastern US idiom; essentially saying you've caught onto a component of my idea without grasping its entirety.
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (2 children)
I just think there'll be times when people are outraged and want to contribute but are not able to.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (1 child)
They could submit something to that effect in either met@ or r/@, but voting simply out of outrage or anger is not something I want to encourage. If you think of a valid iteration of this concern, I'll address it with an amendment. Otherwise, I think what we've got so far is pretty good.
[–]Occupier_9000 [score hidden]  (0 children)
Oppose.
[–]Egotisticallama [score hidden]  (4 children)
Support. We're trying too hard to manipulate the sub content into something that discourages discussion. Oppose. Not everything we see and hear on the sub has to be "anarchist" friendly.
[–]RRRRRK [score hidden]  (0 children)
This proposal actually requires and encourages discussion, because they have to have a minimum of 5 posts a month to vote, and not be inactive for 30 days. Because of that, I don't understand why you believe a participation requirement would somehow reverse participation.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (2 children)
How would this discourage discussion? Also, how does this establish the requirement that your participation be "anarchist" friendly?
This proposal is meant to encourage active and continued engagement by users who wish to have a role in the shaping of met@ and r/@. Those users who are NOT participating should NOT be able to unduly influence the fora.
Is your opposition principled? Is there an amendment which could address your concerns? If it is not principled, would you consider abstention?
[–]Egotisticallama [score hidden]  (1 child)
Initial vote amended as long as the amendments present in the edit are adhered to in the final policy.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)
For sure, no bait-and-switch on my part.
[–]Sachyriel [score hidden]  (1 child)
So it would mean only having 1 comment a month or post a month after the initial 10/month bit?
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)
Sure. All in all, its about the most minimal threshold I could think of.
[–]burtzev [score hidden]  (0 children)
Oppose
[–]reaganveg [score hidden]  (1 child)
Block.
[–]needstrangersadvice[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)
That isn't an option according to our current voting conventions. You are, however, free to oppose the proposed amendment.
[–]Min_thamee [score hidden]  (0 children)
Support
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 20000 on app-271 at 2015-03-13 20:54:50.961287+00:00 running df566c5 country code: DE.
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%