The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

The new seed bank idea, which will allow posters to send negative “seeds” to one another, will harm the vibe of zaadz in a big way.

1) It will enable people to give anonymous “fuck you”s whenever they please.

2) People will never be able to defend themselves against bad seeds-there would be no record of what had happened, just the bad seed.

3) It will increase mistrust in Zaadz rather than trust.

4) It will be wonderful for the politically correct police but not those who are trying to push into new territory.

5) It doesn't take into account the shadow aspect of of human consciousness.

Imagine if school kids were allowed to send anonymous bad seeds to other kids, or imagine if your fellow citizens were able to do the same. People have a shadow, and some people don't have that much self-control, and bad seeds would be sent if they simply disagreed with people, had a bad day, didn't like someone for arbitrary reasons, were jealous of someone etc. With regard to the shadow, people can have intense dislike for certain people because they see a part of themselves that they don't like in that other person. So we would literally have people sending bad seeds to eachother not for things someone did wrong but for things they didn't like about themselves.

To the Zaadz team: Please search for another way to deal with the problem of abusive posters, one that will not harm the great positivity that Zaadz had before this system came into place.

~ David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

The Seed Bank Idea brings to mind what happened in Germany during Hitler where neighbors turned in neighbors anonymously and then people just disappeaerd.  The same thing occurred in East Germany as well as in Communist CHina and the Soviet Union.  It is even occuring now in the USA under the beware of terrorist.

Why repeat that here?  As someone else said , there is no system to trust.  It is either there or it isn't.  And this so called system will undermine the trust that is there now.

To summarily lock our previously discussions of this on the pod we were requested to comment on without transferring the threads over here does not engender our trust of admin.

Jeremiah

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

David: Although I've not always agreed with you (on th I-I) pod, I'm fully supporting you're point of view here, and I think your points are clear and well articulated.

Jeremiah: I fully agree.

I have nothing to add, realy. I just want to suport both your point of views.

One little point of view though that I see is the following:

- Children from 7 to 11 experience what Freud called “the latency” stage. It is a very “conventional” time of their development when they learn to integrate the rules and be the rules.

In psychotherapy,a lot of the work is to help people go past that “conventional” stage, which is caracterized by a high sensitiveness to other people's judgement. This conventionality is certainly something we all need to integrate, but the process of individuation should not stop here. In order to become close to one's own self, we all need to go beyond “What people think of us”. This is a hard work, but it leads to a more fuller personality that can be more complexely creative and spontaneous.

This seed thing has elicited many answers like: “It reminds me of my school days”. And this is certainly not to be discarded lightly. It is a technique that will probably enhance “Conventionality” and there is no wonder that it reminds some of us of a moment of development  were our surroundings and our development was centered around the integration of conventionality.

The other analogy that has been spoken too is the “tyranical state” one. Conventionality enforced by the people against the people, and prevention of individuation and creative behaviour are central features of that kind of government. We can also quite clearly see how the seed principle will foster that kind of  feeling.

Basicaly, I think this seed thing is going to ennhance banality, mediocrity, what is mostly loved, conventionality _ because, yes, thiese kind of attitudes also exists in the spiritual comunities.

Hope you guys will put some water in your wine!

Patrick

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I'm curious–genuinely–about what you believe might be a better means of moderation. We're truly open to this. So far this new system has been met with quite a bit of criticism, but I haven't heard many (any?) constructive or creative ideas for something better. This felt like the most fair and empowering means we could come up with for community moderation, and we did but a great deal of thought into it. But if you have suggestions for something more healthy, something that won't “enhance conventionality,” please please please let us know.

I know. Zaadz feels safe. This place feels like a haven, an oasis, someplace that can be trusted and secure. This isn't an accident, though! The sanctity of this community is the result of discernment and standards. Our team, especially the community support crew, works to make sure that those who don't abide by these standards–those who come on and start sending messages to, say, purchase Viagra, or those who come and send harrassing notes to women on the site–get removed. And now we're attempting to give you a voice in those decisions, and to give you, the community, some of that responsibility… and you're saying you don't want it, and that you prefer to be taken care of and protected by the team instead.

It's curious to me. :)

Better form of moderation

Hi, Siona,

You say, “I'm curious–genuinely–about what you believe might be a better means of moderation.”  I'm not certain that I need a better form of moderation.  I haven't been at Zaadz long, but from what I have seen of this site, the current moderators, most of whom I do not know, so please don't take offense, seem to be doing a great JOB.

IF it ain't broke, don't fix it.  The entire time I was at Omidyar.net, good, well-meaning people, myself included, although I do not know how good and well-meaning I am, fought like children over the point system there.  From the earliest days of Omidyar, until literally the last few posts, the point-system hung over Omidizens' heads like a sword.

The problem is not point-systems.  The problem is people.  Everyone will suddenly get self-righteous about something, sooner, or later.  WE, human beings, are deeply-flawed critters who learn from sharing, cooperating, and seeing Others model behaviors that WE want to try out for ourselves.  All these methods for learning are interaction-oriented.

Point-systems of any sort, remove US one more step from interaction.  Like pokes and woos at other sites, points of any sort become a shorthand, so to speak, for crowds in the Colosseum to show THEIR own baser instincts

I don't think that I am saying that I want “to be taken care of and protected by the team instead.”  I am saying that when I have a problem, I would prefer to work it out through communication and discussion.  I would prefer that when Others have a problem with ME that THEY at least try to work it out with ME first.  I think seeds like point-systems everywhere else, will work to diminish people working things out.

I am happy to know that the team is there, but at Omidyar, WE were very self-policing through posts directed at changing behavior.  When there was a definite problem with spammers, or trolls, they were removed without appeal, or prejudice.

Just like here.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Siona,

x

x

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Well, we reached Godwin's Law pretty quickly in this thread.  And as completely unhelpful as this comment was, I'm not flagging it down or for review.  If it were explicit or confrontational, I would.

And that's how it will go. 

Is anyone seriously worried that they will be negatively affected by this system?  I mean really, are you?  If so, then who else is out to get you?  The answer, friend, is no one.  Your kookiness is not a threat or concern to anyone, and will not be dampened here, surely. 

And for my money, Zaadz is about as politically uncorrect and radical as it gets, while still being a caring and reasonable place.  Be the first of that, but also be the second.  Does anyone have a serious problem with that?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Jeremiah,

“To summarily lock our previously discussions of this on the pod we were requested to comment on without transferring the threads over here does not engender our trust of admin.”

thanks for pointing it out. but there was no malice in locking the thread. to be honest, i've added a link to that thread before i've even read your post :) check it out.

the discussion should've been on the Thinktank pod in the first place. i take full responsibility for goofing and pointing it on the HOW TO pod. my apologies.

the HOW TO pod is for questions about features. feedback and concerns should be posted on this (Thinktank) pod.

carry on with the discussion.

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

JEREMIAH ….mind the glass house you live in…

Would Hitler engage in the conversation that has started here…

NO! Hitler would scream out then run and call for his henchmen to finish the job….much like you have dropping in a couple of comments…and then leaving the table quickly…

The Team here @ Zaadz have engaged in a discussion with you…and have already made changes to the system….I don't remember things working like that when I lived in “Communist China” and people did not like things….(have you ever lived in one of these countries…during abhorent times and conditions????????)

A fascist or communist would make a quick comment…much like you have done….puff up their chest similar to the way you have… and more over… they would then “line you up” and do with you as they please…

I really wish you could throw some bad seeds at me for this post… because I know what I am saying is most likely bothering you…and you would prefer that I don't continue to talk about your opinion like this….(and will continue too, especially now that there is no way for  you to bury it  with bad seeds) I will also “digg this post”, “stumble this post”, and “bookmark” this post every way I can so as many people as possible can see it…

I hope you apologize for you vulgar and insane comparison to some of the most evil things in the world…

I am happy to read and engage in debates,  and I think most others are too, it's part of the reason…Zaadz is different and  it's one of the reasons people flock here….but the calliousness you display here is truly an insult, and a betrayal to that cross you where around your neck in your profile picture…

~definitive

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Yeah. I was a little bothered by Matthew's locking of the thread over there, even if I do understand his rationale–that space was intended to serve as a “how to” and FaQ area. Still, I think philosophical debate always has a place.

I'm still trying to get my head around how this is fascist, though! Isn't it more, um, Orwellian if the power is aggregated in the hands of a few?

I'll address David's points, though. I don't think this community is into anonymous “f-you” giving. I don't think it would even occur to me to use those seeds in such a fashion, and I can't imagine this is different for others.

And people can always defend themselves against negative feedback, just by taking their concerns to the team. Again, I really can't imagine this will be much of a problem–the hope is that the flagging will only be used for blatant violations of the terms–but if someone does feel they've been unfairly repremanded, they can always appeal. Really, though, how many times do you think the negative feedback button will be used? I'd hope, again, that it would be a very innfrequent thing.

Do you know it will increase mistrust? And don't you think this community is discerning and tolerant enough to appreciate those who are pushing into new territory? There's a difference, obviously, between speaking out in dissent and doing so in an offensive or disrespectful fashion. The seeds are meant to speak to the latter.

I like your shadow point. Maybe when you send a bad seed you get one yourself. :)

And we're COMPLETELY open to other options. Do you have any suggestions for a means of handling abuse? Please please please weigh in!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Siona said, ”Yeah. I was a little bothered by Matthew's locking of the thread over there, even if I do understand his rationale–that space was intended to serve as a “how to” and FaQ area. Still, I think philosophical debate always has a place.”

Siona, philosophical debate does have a place.  Regarding that TR system, that place is on the Think Tank.  I'm sorry I had to end the conversation over there, but it must be done.  It can continue here.

In case you're wondering why I locked it over there, the reason is quite simple:  As the HTFAQs pod is meant for people to find answers to commonly asked questions or instructions on how to use something, if debates are allowed to take place there, then it defeats the whole purpose of why I created that pod to begin with!  eg. Someone searches for how to use something on the site, and fifty-thousand irrelevant posts pop up.  That's not ok.  Make sense?

Continue debating.  Do it here on the Think Tank.  That's one of the reasons I created this pod.  OK?

~M

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Touche. :)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

OK, I'd like to try to recap some of this:

FACT: A new Zaadz Trust system has been in the work for a while, and it just debuted.

FACT: Some strong and articulate voices immediately came out in opposition to the new system, and a few people have already left Zaadz (or said they would).

FACT: The Trust system isn't fully enabled yet, and there's a good deal of confusion as to how it actually works.

So, there is confusion and dissent, and there have also been some good (productive) conversations as well as some tending towards the organizational ad hominem and the personal ad hominem in response.

My own, personal, reaction was, admittedly, instantaneously negative. (One thing I have learned over time is to trust my instincts and my bodily reaction to things. And my bodily reaction was that some kind of weird wounding had certainly occurred.) To me, it felt like this was another step away from what makes Zaadz unique, and that, as many have pointed out, it potentially may forever alter the vibe on Zaadz, and not in a good way.

Now, I'm not going to jump ship right away, because I like it here. I feel like I have contributed a good deal, and that I have received a great deal as well. But I do expect behavior and conversational openness to be altered, and probably not in a good way.

(And, for the record, I have only had one negative encountered with anyone on Zaadz, and if this system was in place, that person would have continued in a negative and spiteful way, I believe, to harm me if at all possible, even though I believe that person was entirely in the wrong. And that's one of the problems with this whole system: there inevitably *will* be people who will misuse it.)

So, having read a good hour's worth of other's people comments, here are my questions:

(1) While I know Zaadz isn't a democracy, was any thought given to polling a subset of the members–either survey-style or with open-ended questions–and ask them how they would react to this system?

(2) Was any thought given to trying this out on just a subset of the folks here?

(3) Is there a way to opt out of the Trust-seeds system? If not, why not? Perhaps those who didn't stay opted-in would have somewhat less posting and navigation freedom, a minor carrot to stay in, but not a kind of “imposed authoritarian” ratings system.

(4) If Zaadz really regards the membership as its most valuable resource, then how seriously have you taken the fact that such strong instant negative feedback came from multiple individuals of good standing? With such similar themes? That is, it clearly seems to me that you have sown some seeds of dissent here…maybe this is feedback you can use to refine your process before further introducing such controversial system-wide changes so abruptly?

(5) Can you really, truly, look me in the eye and say that this has nothing to do with the desire to make Zaadz more popular so it generates more money for Gaiam, i.e., a kind of Facebook-ization of Zaadz? I understand that Zaadz is designed to make money ultimately, but walking that fine line between “conscious capitalism” and “capitalism-that-continues-to-destroy” is not an easy task.

The truth is, I don't think you would have had such a strong reaction if this was handled better…maybe even a two week Advance Notice or something…and if you don't want to be pegged as ultimately being driven by the same forces that drive most of everything else, you're going to have to do a better job at implementing potentially divisive changes.

Finally, as for other ways to moderate the system, I will admit that I wasn't aware how much scanning and monitoring was already being done here, and I thank you for that. But as nice as it would be to have a system like this “take on that task,” you really do have to look at the fact that the other site that provided the model failed in part because of how that model went down. (At least, that's what I read earlier here.) It may be that if you want a vibrant, robust, spiritually-centered site, there will be a necessity to monitor what goes on that can not be given to the members of the site itself (one of those: “you can't solve a problem at the level that a problem is created” kind of things).

I know you, Zaadz team, all work hard and have your heart in this, but you have to take the feedback that something really did go wrong here in the way this all went down. From there, perhaps, something that works better for everyone can be reached.

best blessings,

Jordan

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Awesome, Jordan - just quick hits:

5) This was on the list long before Gaiam - we've wanted a way to let the best stuff rise to the top, to get more attention - and to help flag creeps

4) It's a natural and predictable response, and we would hope people play devil's advocate, to help us see our blind spots

3) All we're trying to do is [see point 5 above].  The opt-out is a decent idea, somewhat defeating the purpose, but maybe it can be integrated in…

2) Si, and I was one of the guinea pigs

1) It's been a request of many users, so that's one side.  From the other, there would be immense chest beating and angst regardless.  We have to give it a shot, so here it is - if it fails, we'll adjust according to new realizations. 

And all in accordance with the spirit that is here, promise :)

Thanks again for the excellent and thoughtful letter!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Jordan!

Nice. :)

1) I suppose we were a little naive in not polling the members; we'd just imagined a moderation system that gave the community the most say would be preferable to one that consolidated the decision-making power in the hands of a few.

2) We tried the system out among the admins to see whether it worked. To be fair, this probably wasn't a representative group; none of us really paid much attention to the negative feedback option (but I'd hope this would be indicative of how others would see it).

3) Wouldn't opting out defeat the purpose? You can always choose not to give seeds, and unless you're doing something really terrible or obviously abusive, I doubt you'll need to worry about getting any negative feedback–for the most part, Zaadz is a very nonjudgmental and live-and-let-live place. I see no reason why this wouldn't continue–so this would be as good as opting out. No?

4) Your fourth point is definitely important. If everyone really continues to feel THAT strongly about not wanting to participate, we could go back to the former, 'invisible' policing system. That said, I'm well aware that it tends to be those who don't like something new who speak out; what about those who haven't responded? Or the notes I've gotten in my inbox that say “I don't get what the big deal is! This seems like a perfectly reasonable moderation system to me…” :)

As to your final point, well, that's easy! The Trust system had been in the works (starting out on our list of 'features to implement' and then, later, being coded) long, long before Gaiam came into the picture. I actually don't see how it would make the site “more popular” to anyone who's not already a member; it's more to encourage participation, to help valuable content 'bubble to the top,' and again, to give you a much larger say in what happens here.

And Jordan? Thank you. We're learning about the Advance Warning thing, it seems. In the future I promise to use the Team blog to play more of a 'heads up'! rather than a 'surprise!!!' role.


(Oops. Chris already got to this. Oh well… now you've got both of our independent answers. :)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Siona, my concern is based on experiences over at Yahoo 360. We actually had a group that was going around and attacking/hacking others profiles. One gentle soul was so inundated that she not only was driven off the site, but also had to seek psychiatric help. I understand your rationale for this system, but I think that once Zaadz starts to become more known some not so nice people may find their way here. If the “bullies” like were found on 360 come here, what is to stop them from harrassing others, especially if they can do it anonymously.
There are also quite a few “sensitive souls” here who may not be able to handel personal attacks. They are people of peace and some may not be able to handle negative attacks.
Some of the changes recently have been nice. The shoutouts allowing your friends to say hey for the world to see. I don't need to see what I have been doing. (I think I did go into my profile and disabled that.) Seeing what my friends are doing and being able to filter that info was nice. I subscribe to some friends blogs, but there are others that I may not be and this lets me see when they are blogging. Unfortunately, at first that moved my pods list down and I had to scroll down a bit to get to my pod link. It appears you have rectificed that by moving it to the right column under friends. Better thanks, but it would be nice if we could choose where we wanted things placed.
So there are some kudos here for some of the changes. I, like many others, do not care for the seeds idea, but it isn't make or break for me. Mostly, I will just ignore it. I just think that for those who are just “getting their voice” and opening up, which can be a form of therapy, allowing others to give negative seeds may retard that growth.
Zaadz has been a great place for many to come, plant a seed, and watch it grow. Many of us who have been here a while have seen some great changes, made many new friends, and found a place that was safe, enlightened and free from “adult” type things. A place of peace and harmony. I just pray that the changes taking place, will not start putting tarnish on such a great site.
Just my two pence
White Wolf

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Thank you, WhiteWolf.

We're working to change things so that the system won't be so easily manipulated; I'll post an update to that effect soon.  Right now the negative feedback exists only in the form of a 'flag for review', so that people can tag inappropriate content. I think we'll make it so that a reason needs to be given for any negative feedback, so that people can't just anonymously 'rank down' a post. And the positive feedback system is as before–you can gather seeds by being active on the site, and give them away to whomever or whatever you'd like. It's a means whereby the community as a whole can decide where the most valueable work can be found.

You know, I can understand the dislike of the seeds if they're seen as some kind of popularity contest, but this sincerely wasn't the intent–it was meant for the group to work as a group (and as a community) to discover the best output of Zaadz. I remember certain members saying that we should produce, say, a Zaadz book that included highlights from the community, and this, say, might be a good starting place. The hope was that everyone could contribute to discovering and deciding on this sort of content. Apparently we didn't do that great a job getting this across, though…

But thank you for the kinds words about the other little surprises, and we'll work at finessing things there. (I like seeing what I've been doing because sometimes I forget where I've been posting, but I can understand not wanting that to take up space.)

And I'm praying with you.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

You've got your answer, Ing - there are no bad seeds  :)

Ahhhh, me too…

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hi Siona,
I am able to block incoming calls from certain numbers on my phone, block spam on my email, block shows on my TV.  Would it be possible for me (us) to individually block someone from sending messages, commenting, and maybe even seeing my blog?  The person would get the message quite directly if they tried to send any more unwanted notes and it would allow me to stop undesired attention.
hugs,
 Sprite

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Sprite!

We're actually working on that now; it's possible for the developers to implement 'blocking,' but there's no user interface for it yet. It'll happen, though! And perhaps that would be a more subtle way of moderating… if a person gets blocked by everyone they try to commuicate with, it's pretty apparent that they're not exactly abiding by the terms.

Thank you for this. It's nice to hear about a positive solution or alternative to this. :)

Siona

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

The drop downs are pretty specific, it doesn't seem likely that flagging for a violation of the user agreement is going to fuel petty differences of opinion.

I do like the idea of members having a voice in evaluating our own community. And it's nice that there are positive options as well - the option to flag as inappropriate exists on lots and lots of sites (and Hitler hasn't really taken over SlashDot, just for example) but the positive feedback is especially nice. I get to feel like the good faerie, going around and leaving little gifts.

My only fear at this point is just about myself - I don't want to get caught up in whether I'm one of the popular kids. My best qualities have always come out of being way too nonbaseline for that, and when I blog, for example, I'm just talking to myself. And letting other people listen in. And I already notice that even though I try not to think about it, I notice how many hits blog posts get. But that's just me.

Anyway, the dropdowns are clearly not about being the politcal correctness officer,  and I don't think Hitler is going to take our friends away in the night for having a way to give feedback, but is there a possiblity that negative seeds would not have the anonymous function, or else that there could be a system to contest them if someone is just being pissy with you, with the man behind the curtain being able to erase them if there wasn't any inappropriate content? The user agreement allows for shadow sides and philosophical differences, it seems like there might be a way to monitor the use of negative feedback if it's contested. Maybe?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Time will tell whether the “Seed Bank” idea will make the Zaadz Community healthier or weaker.  This has definately fueled lots of activity which is fun to watch.  Another great opportunity to look in the mirror.
Part of me wants to give all my seeds away.  Part of me wants to hord them.  Part of me knows it doesn't really matter.
Might be a Big Mistake, but growth always comes from big mistakes.
Peace out cubscouts.
Rhyno

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Maybe when people give out negative feedback we could have a little mirror pop up. :)

Thanks, Rhyno. I'm watching the same in myself, and I'm completely with you about enjoying the debate this has sparked. But then, I love these discussions.

To growth!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

rapunzel,

“I do like the idea of members having a voice in evaluating our own community. And it's nice that there are positive options as well - the option to flag as inappropriate exists on lots and lots of sites (and Hitler hasn't really taken over SlashDot, just for example) but the positive feedback is especially nice. I get to feel like the good faerie, going around and leaving little gifts.”

exactly! one of the things being ignored in this conversation is that we're giving community members power to have their say on the contents of the site! a lot of attention was focused on the negative potential of the Trust System.

but just to let you know, the system is designed to avoid misuse and abuse by malicious users. that's the purpose of the Seed Bank.

as you pointed out “Hitler hasn't really taken over SlashDot”. that's because people on SlashDot are familiar with the system and there are check and balances in place to avoid abuse. and we have those check and balances on our Trust System too. not to mention that we (admins) will be the last line of defense against any abuse in our community.

to everyone,

again, the Trust System was designed to put power in your hands in moderating our community. it's a voting system, trust system, reputation system, self-regulating system, all rolled into one. we trust that members of our community are intelligent, compassionate and reasonable enough to use this feature accordingly.

now let's focus on the positive aspect of the Trust System.

1) it's a way to place your vote on good contents so they would bubble up on the site.

2) it's a way of sending your gratitude to other members who have touched your stay here on Zaadz by rewarding them more visibility on the site.

3) it's a way for the community to “self-regulate.”

but then again, you don't have to use it! in fact, the best way to use this is to just keep it in the background and use it only if and when you have to. just keep doing what you're doing. be who you say you are. do what you think you have to do. say what you have to say. be yourself. and let the community “self-regulate” itself (ourselves).

having said that, we'll continue to refine the system based on your feedback. but we ask that you keep the discussion civil. we understand your concerns. we're here to listen.

and when all things are said and done, the effectiveness of the Trust System is dependent on everyone on this site. so use it wisely and with care.

thanks for all your feedback and understanding.

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

And of course, while I was typing something brilliant popped into the thread and I missed it, so I just want to say,
Sprite!
That's an awesome idea.
I play Eve online and being able to block the crazies and the spammers improves the experience enormously. That would be lovely. Glad to hear it's in the works.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I think Jeremiah hit it on the head with this: “And this so-called system will undermine the trust that is there now.”

I have heard the arguement “People here are so trustworthy; they won't abuse this system,” but if they were so trustworthy and well-motivated why would we need the system at all?
 
For the most part people on Zaadz are great, but there are those few who aren't, or who aren't always, so for those few we need a system to deal spam and abuse. The first line of defense includes the moderators of each pods and bloggers, who should moderate their own blog and who have been doing a great job on the pods I have participated on. These moderators should have a place to report to, and participants within a pod should know that they have a duty to report abusive behavior to moderators. When bloggers or perhaps even moderators are abusive, zaadzsters could report directly to the spamming board on this pod or some other pod.

With regard to z-mail problems–as well as general abuse–people have to know about the spamming board here. I recieved some z-mails recently I thought I should report–a woman telling me she was going to commit suicide–and I didn't know where to go with it. I wrote several z-mails, contacted a moderator, reported the z-mail as spam. I didn't know about the spam board here, so of course I didn't know to report it here. So if that were advertised a little–including some encouragement to use it and the reasons why people should, with links to it on each pod, and perhaps even on each profile–the Zaadz team would be alerted to such things.

I'm really sorry that people have been taken by scams, but I don't see how the seed system would prevent that. What isn't fair is an anonymous system where people can send negativity to eachother without explanation or accountability. The person on the receiving end just receives a big shot of negativity, and they wouldn't know why or from whom and would then have to take time to investigate, and they may never even get an explanation and be able to learn from it, if in fact they made a mistake. And of course the z-mail system is in place–as well as threads and zim chats–so there are many ways people can discuss things openly already, and that's much better than sending anonymous bad seeds. For people who are shy or afraid of more abuse, there is the spam board here (once everyone knows about it and what it's for) and moderators.

Thank you, Siona, Mathew, and Jake. I appreciate your comments, your openness, and your thorough and caring responses.

~David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

David?

We're making a few adjustments. We're going to make it so that you can't give individuals negative feedback; only content. Hopefully this will separate out that feeling of judgment or 'sending negativity to each other.' (And again, I do trust that this community will use the negative feedback option only in cases where the posting is really detracting from the safety of this space.)

It's funny. I remember when we first implemented the spam buttons (and the flag for review) in the mail system. It was hard, because it did put up the reminder that NOT everyone is good, and did contribute to that sense of mistrust or concern. But in the interests of keeping this place healthy and people's inboxes unspoiled by spam, the little button made sense. This feels similar.

But I love your first point! It is a paradox, hm? And it is a bit of an experiment. Are we, as a community, capable of being trusted with this system? Or do we need to be protected, instead, by a small group up top? For the past two years, it's been the latter, and this seems to have more-or-less worked. It's certainly true that we could go back to this invisible system instead–we could hire a few more moderators and keep working behind the scenes. If you as a community don't feel you can be trusted with this sort of system–and it does sound as though some of you really don't want that responsibility–perhaps we ought reconsider.

I think we should give it a shot, though.

And thank you again, David, for your own courage and dissent and kind concern.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

David,

“With regard to z-mail problems–as well as general abuse–people have to know about the spamming board here. I recieved some z-mails recently I thought I should report–a woman telling me she was going to commit suicide–and I didn't know where to go with it. I wrote several z-mails, contacted a moderator, reported the z-mail as spam. I didn't know about the spam board here, so of course I didn't know to report it here. So if that were advertised a little–including some encouragement to use it and the reasons why people should, with links to it on each pod, and perhaps even on each profile–the Zaadz team would be alerted to such things.”

thanks for bringing this up. this is a somewhat different issue. and we'll deal with this accordingly. we'll add this to our list of features and make it more obvious where and how to report spamming and scamming activities.

in the meantime, we've dedicated the following threads on this issue. see below.

REMINDER: Be mindful of Internet scams

HOW TO: Report Spam Messages

Spam Alert: Be Mindful of the Messages You Receive

when in doubt, feel free to contact us any time.

as always, thanks to all your insighful feedback. keep 'em coming :)

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Oh, Rhyno, give them away! That's what they're for!  At this point there are so many awesome posts and brilliant people that I actually sat down and made a list so I wouldn't forget where I had distributed thingies….but I admit, I'm planning to save a few back in case the next awesome thing has come up and I've emptied my seed pouch…

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Personally, I think the distribution of seeds is a great idea that just needs a little more massaging to work with the intended effect.  Thankfully, I have never felt harrassed on this site, nor have I felt the need to distribute any 'bad' seeds. 

I actually like to know when I've offended someone or somehow created a negative reaction.  That's useful for my growth.  But to get an anonymous bad seed would be like a friend deciding not to speak to me without me knowing why.  Why not require, for example, that if anyone distributes a 'negative' seed that they need to express why they did so with a copy going only to that individual and the zaadz monitoring team? 

While I see myself giving big love to lots of the folks who positively impact my life here (and from my perspective that is a cool addition), I would also like to know if I elicited a negative reaction from someone on my pods or someone who visited my page or read something I wrote.  That, to me, is useful for my growth.

To know why someone experienced negative feelings as a result of your expressions, I portend, would be constructive.

Whaddya think? If we spread 'negative' (call em growth seeds?) seeds, let's at least have the courage and the opportunity (and the requirement) to express why we're flagging that person.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I actually really like this idea. It enhances accountability and provides people who might be unknowingly abusive understand a bit about why their content might not be appreciated.

Thank you!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Is it possible that we could have the option of good seeds, but negative seeds would just be a “flag as inappropriate” option to be evaluated by admin? We all agreed to the same user agreement, and it seems like there's a lot of fear around the “bad seeds” being misused or abused.  That seems to be the focus.
I don't know, just a thought.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I personally laughed for a long time when I read this seed crap. What do you think drives this site? Its the difference in opinions. When you get alot of people who agree on everything you get no interaction…no lively discussions… no points of contrast in which to form you own opinion. I have been “reprimanded”  a few times by the zaadz people about my posts, and I don't care… I say what I feel, when I feel it, and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. AND because of that we have amazing debates on our pod. “Bad Seeds” are a necessary part of existence, they change the world (and always for the better) because they are the ones to say “I disagree.” Jesus was a 'bad seed” Buddha was a “bad seed” Columbus was a “bad seed” Darwin was a “bad seed” MLK was a “bad seed”. Do you get what I'm trying to say?

Guru Jack - Bad Seed and moderator of a bad seed pod.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

That's awesome, Jack!  Beautiful.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

“I have been “reprimanded”  a few times by the zaadz people about my posts, and I don't care… I say what I feel, when I feel it, and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. AND because of that we have amazing debates on our pod. “Bad Seeds” are a necessary part of existence, they change the world (and always for the better) because they are the ones to say “I disagree.” Jesus was a 'bad seed” Buddha was a “bad seed” Columbus was a “bad seed” Darwin was a “bad seed” MLK was a “bad seed”. Do you get what I'm trying to say?”

Jack,

this is somewhat out of topic but i just want to clarify your point. 

for the record, we don't see your pod as a bad seed pod. in fact, i personally like how you guys stir things up on that pod. you've been “reprimanded” not because of your post but what you've done to other people's post. BIG difference. i just wanted to get this out of the way. let's all be honest here.

having said that, carry on with your pod. say what you want to say. no one is stopping you. as long as you stick to our terms of use. and please set good examples to members of your pod.

and thanks for your feeback :)

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I AM always honest, thats seems to be what the problem is. Lets take some of the things that have been said and what I did. A guy came to our pod selling his anger management cd's. no big deal…However I was LED to change a few words in his post, and in doing he so he was so pissed that he left Zaadz altogether…. wow thats some anger management…. now, in your eyes I comitted “cyberabuse” and did something that some people would have given me a bad seed for. The truth of the matter is I showed everyone (including the poster) that he was selling something that he himself didn't understand. So…if i had recieved bad seeds for this and been labeled as “untrustworthy”, then who would benefit? would the buyers of his product?….doubt it, how can you teach something that you don't understand yourself? Would the poster have benefited? He might have made some money, but it would be fleeting and not really what he was wanting…..and I gave him the chance to work through what he is teaching, so I see what I did as totally right. The whole trust seed issue is an issue about control, and thats why everyone has this instant gut feeling that its wrong. No one likes to be controled. If you are looking for the community to moderate, then give the pod creators the ability to kick people off thier pods permanently. It is control to a certain extent, but at the same time people are free to join another pod that may be more aligned with who they are. Some of the most trustworthy people in history have been the ones labeled as bad and untrustworthy, becuase they didn't fit the mold.

Guru Jack- Enlightened Bastard

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

we're getting out of topic here. we can take this topic elsewhere. but i feel compelled to reply because your story is very partial.

Jack said: “However I was LED to change a few words in his post, and in doing he so he was so pissed that he left Zaadz altogether…. wow thats some anger management…. now, in your eyes I comitted “cyberabuse” and did something that some people would have given me a bad seed for. The truth of the matter is I showed everyone (including the poster) that he was selling something that he himself didn't understand. So…if i had recieved bad seeds for this and been labeled as “untrustworthy”, then who would benefit? would the buyers of his product?”

for the record, i don't question your intention. what i question is your method. using your admin privilege to MODIFY a members post is not ethical. you didn't mention how you changed it though. well, you changed it by insulting the member (e.g. using the word “gay” to insult the poster). is that the right approach? as an admin you have other alternatives. you could've just deleted the post if you think it is a spam. warned your members, then notified the poster, and then reported the incident to us admins. mocking and insulting the person by vandalizing their post is not only disrespectful but malicious.

again, i don't question your intention. it's the method that i don't approve of because it violates our terms of use.

enough of this topic here. we can discuss this on another thread. feel free to open another thread about this. we can discuss this on your pod and see what your members have to say. fair enough?

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Thank you, Siona, C4. I really appreciate the openness, care, and discussion.

It's wonderful that the option to send negative seeds to another's profile has been taken down; that was one of the biggest troubles with it.

As for flagging blogs (and threads and posts?), it's kind of like a punishment without a trial. It would feel like a negative seed to the blogger or poster, and the flag may not have been justified. It's really not much different than sending a negative seed to someone's profile. A lot of people are afraid to post and blog as it is; flagging would make that problem worse.

So it's better that people are made aware of the spamming board here and the reasons for using it–that way it would be the Zaadz team that determines whether the flagging has merit rather than each person having the power to flag blogs or perhaps even threads and posts and thereby send a negative message to someone without explanation.

So this is also a way to self-regulate and put power in the hands of the community while at the same time guarding against arbitrary flaggers and negative seeders. It's great to have the positive feedback system in addition to these safeguards, but I still feel anonymous negative seeds to wherever they go would not give the person a chance to defend themselves against each criticism, while a discussion in the spamming board would.

~David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

The amount of time I have spent thinking about this new “Trust System” has become excess. So I have to ask myself why, what is really bothering me here and why am I keeping such close tabs on the up date? My answer is …
… I dislike this new system a lot (yet I say this without really giving it a chance to prove or disprove itself something I normally don't do and didn't plan to do here.)
… yet I keep hoping for word that it will just be stopped (I guess so I don't have to think about it anymore?) Hum … why do I dislike it so much already?
Immediatly I had a strong negative reaction … it didn't feel good and I even felt like I wanted to leave zaadz if this change happened (and yes we all tend to resist change so that may have been a factor but realy I don't think it is a big one). Yet, I decided to wait and give it a chance because that is what my mind tells me is the reasonable thing to do and heh, the thought of sending love seeds sounded right up my alley and I knew I'd never have to send a bad seed. So …
I then started sending seeds and this is when the real problem with me became apparent.
I coudn't send all my friends seeds cause I didn't have enough (even if I only sent 1 each which I decided felt to strange so I had to send 3 to them and that led to me picking who was going to get the first of these seeds I sent YUK! Yes, I've gone out and gathered more seeds but now am I feeling motived to give seeds to all my friends (I know this is my own problem)? I'm feeling like some are left out cause I've not been able to send them seeds yet. This seems so ridiculous that I am even thinking about this … it feels like I'm playing a game that I don't want to play. 
I hear the argument that we are being given the power that was before in only a few peoples hands and I appriciate the desire to give us that but I don't think this will work … but … no one has given it a chance yet. I really like that you have asked for alternative ideas and there have been a few good ones. Personally I do not see the need for this (but I've not had to deal with taking people off the site so it's a problem I've been unaware of … being so new to the net and having only been on zaadz I still am very naive to so many things like spam etc …   
Now I'm going to stop thinking about this for awhile.
Much Love & Peace

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

i’m instructed that i posted this in the wrong category earlier. so i’m reposting it here to …uh… keep in play.
dave

Re: A sad development
Dave said Today, 8:10 AM:

It seems to me that Curmudgeon has a relevant point to make concerning this somewhat Orwellian ‘seed system’. However, I’m reminded (as is often the case) of a thought provoking set of ideas from the philosopher, James P. Carse. In his gorgeous little book, Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility, he elucidates what appears to me to be the crux of this current situation:

(1) There are at least two kinds of of Games. One could be called finite, the other infinite.

A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.

(2) There is no finite game unless the players freely choose to play it. No one can play who is forced to play.

It is an invariable principle of all play, finite and infinite, whoever plays, plays freely. Whoever must, play, cannot play.

(3) Just as it is essential for a finite game to have definitive ending, it must also have a precise beginning. Therefore, we can speak of finite games as having temporal boundaries … to which, of course, all players must agree. But players must agree to the establishment of spatial and numerical boundaries as well. That is, the game must be played within a marked area, and with specified players.

…Numerical boundaries take many forms but are always applied in finite games. Persons are selected for finite play. It is the case that we cannot play if we must play, but it is also the case … that we cannot play alone. Thus, in every case, we must find an opponent, and in most cases teammates, who are willing to join in play with us.

…Because finite players cannot select themselves for play, there is never a time when they cannot be removed from the game, or when the other contestants cannot refuse to play with them. The license never belongs to the licensed, nor the commission to the officer. What is preserved by the constancy of numerical boundaries, of course, is the possibility that all contestants can agree on an eventual winner. Whenever persons may walk on or off the field of play as they wish, there is such confusion of participants that none can emerge a clear victor.

(5) Only one person or team can win a finite game, but the other contestants may well be ranked at the conclusion of play.
…There are many games we enter not expecting to win, but in which we nonetheless compete for the highest possible ranking.

(6) In one respect, but only one, an infinite game is identical to a finite game. Of infinite players we can also say that if they play they play freely; if they must play, they cannot play.

Otherwise, infinite and finite play stand in the sharpest possible contrast.

Infinite players cannot say when their game began, nor do they care. …the only purpose of the game is to prevent it from coming to an end, to keep everyone in play.

While finite games are externally defined, infinite games are internally defined. The time of an infinite game is not world time, but time created within the play itself. Since each play of an infinite game eliminates boundaries, it opens to players a new horizon of time.

(7) Finite games can be played within an infinite game, but an infinite game cannot be played within a finite game.

Infinite players regard their wins and losses in whatever finite games they play as but moments in continuing play.

(8) If finite games must be externally bounded by time, space, and number, they must also have internal limitations on what the players can do to and with each other. To agree on internal limitations is to establish rules of play.

…If these restraints are not observed, the outcome of the game is directly threatened. The rules of a finite game are the contractual terms by which the players can agree who has won.

(9) The rules must be published prior to play, and the players must agree to them before play begins.

A point of great consequence to all finite play follows from this: The agreement of the players to the applicable rules constitutes the ultimate validation of those rules.

(10) If the rules of a finite game are unique to that game it is evident that the rules may not change in the course of play –else a different game is being played.

It is on this point that we find the most critical distinction between finite and infinite play. The rules of an infinite game must change in the course of play. The rules are changed when the players of an infinite game agree that the play is imperiled by a finite outcome–that is, by the victory of some players and the defeat of others.

The rules of in infinite game are changed to prevent anyone from winning the game and to bring as many persons as possible into the play.

If the rules of a finite game are the contractual terms by which the players can agree who has won, the rules of an infinite game are the contractual terms by which the players agree to continue playing.

For this reason the rules of an infinite game have different status from those of a finite game. They are like the grammar of a living language, where those of a finite game are like the rules of debate. In the former case we observe rules as a way of continuing discourse with each other, in the latter we observe rules as a way of bringing the speech of another person to an end.

The rules, or grammar, of a living language are always evolving to guarantee the meaningfulness of discourse, while the rules of debate must remain constant.”

So, do we play?

Respectfully,
Dave

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

No time to read all the entries carefully right now, nor to study the seed bank idea in any detail. However, I saw the discussion title and thought “amen.”

If Zaadz is simply meant to be a lovey-dovey, politically correct group therapy session (I beg the question, I admit), then it won't be all that it can be.

Honest communication, and any kind of enterprise with philosophical or quasi-philosophical pretensions, requires openness not merely to comforting the afflicted, but also afflicting the comfortable, as the phrase goes.

If the ancient Athenians had a seed bank, they could have rid themselves of Socrates more easily.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

i woke up this morning with this writing itself in my head, and the only challenge  was deciding where to post it; this seems to be the current arena of discussion.

These are the general questions I believe need to be considered with respect to any new system being proposed to any group:

Are these objectives worth pursuing? What larger purposes do they serve? Do they actually achieve those larger purposes? What are the potential downsides of these objectives? How might they be misused?

Does the system proposed actually achieve these objectives? Is the system proposed the best way of achieving these objectives? Are the ends and means consistent? What are the potential beneficial side-effects of the proposed system? What might be the potential downsides of the system? How might it become counter-productive? How might the system be misused? Does the system have built-in feedback mechanisms? Is ongoing refinement and tweaking built into the system?

How might different perspectives from different levels of consciousness or evolution view this system, and how could each perspective's concerns be addressed within the system? In other words, what refinements might each perspective contribute to the system? How might the system be adapted to be more acceptable to each perspective?

If one knows the answer to all these questions, THEN one is IMHO entitled to an actual opinion about the matter. Before that, of course, we have our vague uneasiness, our apprehensiveness, our skepticism, our knee-jerk reactions. These are extremely valuable guides to caution, guides to where and how we need more information, what to check for.

Rather than: This reminds me of….. so it will be exactly like…..    Or This smells like…. and therefore it is….    Or In another context something similar had certain results, so this inevitably will have the same results.    Or In the past this had this effect, and the future will be just like the past, even though the particulars or the context are different here.

Right now it appears to me that the Team has considered at least to some extent ALL of the above questions, and has answered them all to the adequate satisfaction of most of the Team.

For the rest of us, as we go about getting OUR answers to the above questions, I believe the most benevolent and productive stance is Wait and See. I don't see any immediate obvious unavoidable damage to what I consider the principles and goals of the site, so I am willing to wait and see. Maybe even try it out, see how it feels in practice.

And gather information. Many objections I read are not based on what I consider an accurate picture of the way the system is actually set up!!!

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Aloha OM Bastet,
So your suggestion of wait and see until all the information is out before we say anything sounds like saying those of us who listen to our heart and gut feelings should just be quiet and not voice what is there for us.

It seems to me a lot like the President using the security of the nation as a bat to to shut up those who voiced their concerns before we invaded Iraq. 

Blessed IS,
jeremiah

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

OM Bastet.

A deep bow. Thank you thank you thank you for recognizing all this, and for being such a calm presence. Thank you.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Anthony said: “If the ancient Athenians had a seed bank, they could have rid themselves of Socrates more easily.”

Right!

The invisible-to-zaadzsters flagging sounds helpful for the Zaadz team in keeping track on things, and the positive feedback also sounds great, but I don't see how a person would learn from mistakes or justify actions if people are sending negative seeds someplace they can't see. There has to be a discussion out in the open if people are going to learn.

Instead of the negative feedback option, how about a link to the spamming board? It couldn't be any more intrusive.

I've gotten really behind on my work!

David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

1v3, maybe we're all entitled to our opinions, regardless of how we come to them. Not everyone is linear and analytical, but we all have a perspective and our own possiblities for brilliance or at least understanding.  Maybe that shouldn't be a conditional entitlement?

Jeremiah, no one is being “shut up” I don't think, this isn't BushCo - it's just a new thing we're all trying together. It isn't such a big thing.

I got very reactive to the new activity board postings recently - a few years back I had a scary real-life stalker in a work setting and suddenly seeing my every move broadcast freaked me out.  I didn't wait and see or even figure out what my options were, I just reacted.
That's ok, I'm human. But now I'm smarter about that one particular thing and I wouldn't be so reactive today. Friends of mine left Zaadz over it, unnecessarily.

And I agree with Jordan, that some advance notice would maybe be helpful - I like to feel that I'm a participant rather than that things have just happened to me. And maybe that would ease the freak out factor? Or maybe just start it earlier…

But everyone - can't we just see if this works or not?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

rapunzel? I could hug you. Thanks. :)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

My first gut reaction to the seeds system is I don't want it. After thinking about it, reading (most of) the post, checking in again, I still don't want it. This feature feels totally off to me.

Siona, at least two time you have mentioned 'responsibility' in your responses.

Are we, as a community, capable of being trusted with this system? Or do we need to be protected, instead, by a small group up top? For the past two years, it's been the latter, and this seems to have more-or-less worked. It's certainly true that we could go back to this invisible system instead–we could hire a few more moderators and keep working behind the scenes. If you as a community don't feel you can be trusted with this sort of system–and it does sound as though some of you really don't want that responsibility–perhaps we ought reconsider.

I don't share your conclusion that who is against the seeds system is not willing to take more responsibility. When you say, people who get negative seeds and are upset by that can contact the team - well, isn't that the same 'irresponsible' method as it was with spamming?

If we as a communitiy don't feel we can be trusted with this sort of system? I can't help but feeling manipulated by a statement like that. Isn't that completely turning around what has been said by those among us who don't think this is a good idea? There have been tons of fabulous arguments WHY this is not a good idea.

I'd say we as a community can't afford this kind of system - in my eyes it's designed as a popularity contest, interesting maybe if you want to do marketing with the most popular blogs and pods, so you can charge more for advertisements on those pages.

Maybe it's just that the interests of zaadz the business and zaadz the community are drifting apart?

I think this discussion should not have been AFTER the fact. Too late for a constructive suggestion about that.

Gabriele

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I think it's really misunderstanding how such a large group of people can work to think that you can have a lot of input at the front end of a proposed change. This necessarily has to come from the top, or it would get bogged down in forever processing and nothing would ever get done.

All change is bound to bring up reaction. It's downright rude to start comparing the good people here, who work hard at something they believe in, to “President” Bush, and says far more about the speaker than the subject at hand. Let's remember this is a free service. Asking for feedback is not the same as saying they have to cater to one particular point of view just because you have a sense of entitlement.

You know, the best way to make sure something like this doesn't affect you is to ignore it. If nobody uses it, it will get sloughed off eventually. Indulging in dramatics gives it all the power that you don't want it to have.

Liz

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Gabriele?

Thank you so much for this, especially the way you've gently expressed your feelings. I think I've been feeling the brunt of the morning, and so I'm sorry if that statement came across as manipulative.

Please, please understand that this wasn't created as a popularity contest. If we'd wanted that, we would have just put in a standard rating system, like Amazon or eBay or any other side that involved such a system. This was intended to give the community a role in doing what we've been doing all along behind the scenes–as well as help people find the discussions and content that the community feels is valuable. It was intended not to encourage conformity, but to provide a means for the community to abitrate, and to, again, give those who've been appreciated for really standing by the values of the site, more of a say in this arbitration.

And I do apologize that there wasn't more advance warning. Again, I promise in the future we'll use the team blog to provide a heads-up on any upcoming features and to ask for help and input in implementing them, instead of using it for surprises.

Your comment about Zaadz the business and Zaadz the community brought something up in me–namely, that the two are interrelated and that the two depend on each other, and learning to navigate that is an ongoing and not-that-simple challange.  It's a dance that I'm still learning the steps to, but I can say, sincerely, that my heart is overwhelmingly on the community side, and I'm a little hurt (and amused!) that this gesture, which was intended as means to put power in the hands of the group, is being seen as a business decision.

That said, I can see your side. And thank you again for expressing this all so gently.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Jeremiah, David, other dissenters on god-knows-how-many blogs – here you have it, my non-anonymous encouragement :)

The fact that the Trust System was sprung on members as a fait accompli was the first red flag to go up. Inserting a ratings scheme without asking the community for consent is an invasion of our privacy, a clear sign of disregard for member's autonomy.  Remember, we're paying eyeballs, each one of us, trying to ignore the ads on the right hand side of every page since zaadz was sold to Gaiam for 10 million dollars.

Then to go on defending what is done with sweet-talk for those who agree, Siona – and sharp reminders of the rules of conduct for critics who don't resort to the usual diplomatic softening techniques, is another red flag for many of us.

It's an authoritarian mind-set that cannot see other perspectives easily, it can barely empathize with viewpoints other than its own, or admit to such a lack of imagination readily.

Trust? My trust has been violated by how this was done. And I've never been suspicious before of any of the zaadz team's activities.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Mascha…

Yikes. Well, we could go back to the unrated system, but this wouldn't address the issue of moderation. Please know I certainly empathize with those edges and feelings around being judged or rated, but this honestly was only intended, again, to give the group as a whole the role of self-moderating, so that we didn't need to be to be the police. And, perhaps too naively, we thought that adding the ability to rank content would be useful, so that the 'what's popular' page would be more indicative of what areas of the site were most valued.

We (and certainly !) didn't expect such reactivity. I'm sorry if my responses have gotten sharp. I'm trying to hold both perspectives, but also inviting you to look at this from the point of view of those of us behind the scenes. Can you see or appreciate our view? Or understand our excitement about having finally gotten this released?

I don't mean to minimize this, either, but if this really doesn't work we can always try something different, and already we've implemented changes to make the 'negative' rankings less of an issue. But this is one of the challenges of group work, I suppose. What would you do in my (or the team's) situation?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Siona asked: What would you do in my (or the team's) situation?

Listen to the people's voices.

But first I'd have to ask them what they want and need, of course.

And before that I would ask myself, if there is a shortage of moderators because the community is growing too fast, what prevents us from hiring and paying some of the great people who are already here? (A few good wo/men immediately spring to mind :-)

Bottomline: What matters most?

Is it money?

I'd have to be ruthlessly honest now. Many here are beginning to suspect that something smelly is wafting across the fish market…

Can I afford not to be ruthlessly honest with myself?

No.


My 0.2 cents with a whole lotta love,

m

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Liz, I really appreciate your comments! And, I don't think I really need to defend anyone here, because as you said, we're good people, but this decision was indeed made with the best interests of the community at heart.

Gabriele, I just wanted to reply to this:

“I'd say we as a community can't afford this kind of system - in my eyes it's designed as a popularity contest, interesting maybe if you want to do marketing with the most popular blogs and pods, so you can charge more for advertisements on those pages.

Maybe it's just that the interests of zaadz the business and zaadz the community are drifting apart?”

We honestly made this decision to empower the community. And, there are some interesting criticisms and ideas in this thread. But, we put a lot of effort in here so we could have a reliable & democratic system where our users could have a voice & build community.

We didn't imagine there would be a response like this. Had we imagined such a response, as Siona said, we would have asked for feedback before. But, we were excited about giving the community more power to monitor itself. If there's a mistake, I think it's in our misconceptions of what the reaction might be. We're still glad to have the feedback, because we do want to do what's best for the community.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I said

If one knows the answer to all these questions, THEN one is IMHO entitled to an actual opinion about the matter. Before that, of course, we have our vague uneasiness, our apprehensiveness, our skepticism, our knee-jerk reactions. These are extremely valuable guides to caution, guides to where and how we need more information, what to check for.

1. OK, I overstated a bit. I rarely do that. Sorry. I take back the word “entitled.”

2. Jeremiah, this was not saying people should shut up. Not even implied. Anyone who knows me knows I would never suggest anything remotely like that. I LOOOOVE people who speak up. But I do like best those who do it respectfully and after some consideration. OTOH first reactions that bubble up are often from a Higher Source, and are to be valued, I believe that.

I believe every post here and elsewhere on this subject–and on other new stuff from theTeam–is valuable and useful. Though, not all for the same purposes!!! :)

3. We are all “entitled' to voice anything at any time. Of course. My point was that it is useful to self to know whether you are voicing a gut reaction, a hunch, a perspective, or an informed (analytical, yes) opinion. All are of value, just they are different.
 
4. I said explicitly that there is great value in first impressions, hunches, gut senses, etc. I even talked about my own. But I don't classify them the same as considered and informed opinions. That's my only point, I think.

Lots of fabulous suggestions on this topic, here and elsewhere. I love the openness here and the synergy of creative minds–and hearts and guts and intuitions– focused on a topic. Yummy.

And Liz, that does seem the simplest approach: If you don't like it, don't use it and I would add Don't Pay Attention to It. Consistent with what someone said above, use the opportunity for growth to get out of the natural tendency to think Ooooh, how can I get more popular in this system? That's a BIGGIE for a lot of us. I don't exempt myself from that.

In my way of living, the purpose of every experience is ultimately to give us the opportunity to expand our awareness of self and others. Underneath the particulars, we can choose to use all this that way. I am inspired by those who are doing so.

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Liz, that's brilliant.

Something O.M. Bastet said really resonated with me.  I feel, as someone on the team, that people are deciding they know what this system is without truly understanding it, and then they are judging it based on those misunderstandings.  And we, on the team, can hardly keep up with all of it.

I would like to know what your questions about it are.  Jake said here, “For those who are worried about getting a really bad reputation, relax. The account and content restrictions are not yet active while we evaluate the algorithms that calculate reputation in real-world conditions.”  Later, he said, “We worked very hard to avoid placing inherent value on reputation. This is simply a measure of how well you are respected by the community, and rewarding active, contributing members with increased influence, but balanced to be fair for all members.”

No one asked him how it will be balanced to be fair.  He's the one who wrote this code!  Instead people reacted without understanding.   He said he'll answer questions you leave on that thread.  If you have questions or concerns, why not ask about his program before making an assumption and then placing judgment on the consequences of that assumption?

Another thing that I'd like to point out is that Jake is brilliantly compassionate.  I've had a quote on my profile for a few months now that he is responsible for:  ”We're not just building tools for people, we're building them for incredible, amazing, wonderful people!!!” ~ Jake

I trust Jake, and I trust his trust system.  Another thing you may not know about that he is responsible for the code that turns the wheel of compassion every time you access a page on Zaadz.  This guy is amazing!  And I have no doubt that his trust system is amazing too.  Why not go straight to the horse's mouth and learn before condemning?  That's all I'm really asking.

Hugs,
~M

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hey Siona and all,

I think what makes me worry most about the new seeds system is the potential capacity of mainstream or popular ways of thinking to subdue the voice of alternative ideas and different ways of relating to the world. To me, Zaadz is an amazingly open community which enables a diverse range of personalities and concepts to flourish and interact. Siona, I've said it to you before - I think this community rocks!

Lets face it - in physical reality people do have the power to subdue other people's voices and elevate popular voices higher.  The seeds system is truer to life than the way it was before. But, in a way, this means we're changing nothing. We are copying the current models of society - most of us will agree are lacking in one way or another - onto the incredibly free virtual space we've created.

The question is, Zaadz Team, do you want this? Aren't we supposed to be about changing the world? I, personally, don't want it but this is a community. Siona, if you really intend to pass the power to the members of this community - why not put up this system for a mail referandum? If YOU TRUST Zaadzsters enough to deal out good\bad seeds why not trust them in making decisions this big?

(About that. I thought Zaadz was a place where we integrate good and bad into whole. Regardless of everything that has been said - this system is a separator. We just need to decide if that suits Zaadz.)
 
When I read your posts I see a weary warrior who has been fighting long at the front lines. You're coming back from the battle, guarding the borders or our lands. By the blood of your people (excuse the quote, lol….) our lands are kept safe.
But you're handing me this sword.
I'm a peasant. I don't know what to do with it. All I know is how to run in open fields, plant seeds and grow trees. I can do that because you're keeping the Zaadz core safe. I'm not saying Zaadzsters are not wise or responsible enough to handle a sword. I'm saying Zaadzsters' job is to handle ideas, not spammers. And swords are not the tool to handle idea seeds and make idea trees grow. It is a tool of judgement - not a bad thing, if we want to find out what is the Zaadz main stream of thought is. But do we? If this is what you are trying to create then “Way to go!” and “Goodbye, it was great while it lasted.”

Maybe you guys need to lay down your arms and come run in the woods with us for a while.  You've created this beutiful oasis for extreme ideas and flourishing positivity and compassion. Maybe some of us need to take up arms and serve at the front lines.
But the Zaadz team need to acknowledge that not everything that can be seen from your essential front line position is good for this community.

You are its creators and protectors, but you are not Zaadz.
We are Zaadz, all of us, together.
So give us the power to decide :-)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

“We are Zaadz, all of us, together.
So give us the power to decide :-)”

See, now I feel a little foolish, because that's what this was intended to do–to give you the power to decide. Sure, this is a tool of judgment, but there's a difference between judging content and judging conduct. Our hope was for you to use this for the latter.

Still, Amit, that's a beautiful metaphor, and a beautiful question. Do you, the community, want this power? Or should we keep it in a few hands?

And, in thinking of how to respond to this, well, something perhaps far too obvious occurred to me. Yes, of COURSE you're right that those of us at the 'front lines,' we the 'builders,' we the protectors and tender-ers and creators, are not Zaadz. We depend, of course, on the community, and on the larger group–just as the community depends on us. And neither can even make sense alone..

Again and again and again, the seed system was created with good intentions. It was created to empower the community and to help the group discover and highlight the best of the site and to encourage participation in a way that was meaningful and that gave as many people as possible a role in determining Zaadz. It's a little humbling to think we didn't consider enough what a poor reception would be like.

Anyway. You wrote about the 'potential' capacity of this in encouraging a 'mainstreaming' of the site. This is a potential, not a reality… so why not see what happens? It feels to me as thuogh there's been no small amount of fear around these responses, and very little love. Perhaps we on the team have to take responsibility for that reaction, too, but I thought I might point it out.

Not gonna argue with the garden-keepers ;-)

Siona,
Though, honestly, my heart tells me otherwise, I just cannot listen to you guys without being inclined to at least try this system. You are the builders, and more importantly cultivators of Zaadz and if I neglected to say this - we really do think you guys are brilliant!!!

I'm taking this sword because it's YOU giving it to me, but I swear I don't know what to do with it. Just gonna have to wait and see how this affects Zaadz. I really want to still be able to hear those cool guys and girls who don't necessarily log in often and don't care about being heard. I for one think they are the heart of Zaadz, rather than the great speakers.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Look, this is just a crazy thought. I'm full of those.
But we're all here in a community we somewhat find comfort in.
And we all have an opportunity to try out a new thingie.
What if we just lean back and trust that the amazing and fabulous people who keep us here will catch us, and see how it goes?
It might not work, it might need tweaking, but honestly, no one is trying to silence you or scare you or judge you.
Could we all just be willing beta volunteers?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I can appreciate the suggestion to inform the community before we release something.  This makes intuitive sense.  But undersand how baffling it is to us when this is suddenly demanded after 2 years of not doing that.  In the past, we built and built and built and built, and only informed after a tool was built.  This was no different.  I'm not criticizing the idea to inform before release; I think it's a good one.  I'm just confused why it would suddenly become a concern.  We added blogs without your permission; we added pods without your permission, we added books, bookmarks, videos, events, zPages, etc. without informing you beforehand, all to empower you.  This was along those same lines.  Can you see why we would be confused?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

matthew -
yes, absolutely.
I think the distinction might be that something either seems to threaten privacy or seems to threaten autonomy in the community.
You can add blogs, pods, whatever, but when folks can be tracked and judged it can cause a bit of a nervous reaction.
I'm going to reiterate my own really dumbass example - I had a stalker in a job setting. He tracked my friends, he showed up where I never thought he would be, he had a pet gun with a name. So seeing my activities broadcast hit my bigtime reactive button - before I looked further and realized I could just turn it off.
That's what the heads up accomplishes.

But it isn't my site, I don't have the wherewithall to do anything like this, and I'm grateful that others do. That's awesome and a total gift. I actually want you to implement what I wouldn't have thought of.

I think maybe a heads up would help whenever the community is being pulled into the process…but really, it may just make the freak outs happen sooner, who knows?

Maybe it would help if we established a subcommunity of beta-volunteers for the new stuff….

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Matthew, I get it.
But maybe this is the next great leap?
This should serve as a mirror to you reflecting what you have created with your bear hands. - a living community, with opinions. This baby is done eating and now it's talking back. Are you going to be the parent who says 'no, I still know what's best for you' or are you going to at least listen to what his needs are? What's important to him?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Greetings,

Well, this has certainly sparked a dynamic discussion, and that's always a positive sign. As is the case with others who have shared their perspectives in this thread, I, too, had a negative first impression of the 'seed bank' idea. It struck me as very much 'old paradigm', and kind of smacked a bit of junior-highschool (due to the bad seed thing).

What the convesation here seems to suggest is not so much that the 'seed bank' idea is bad at its core, per se, but perhaps there are issues that are counter to the mission and spirit of Zaadz, and thus are opportunities for refinement.

One suggestion would be to look at the issue from an appreciative inquiry perspective. For example:

If one or some of the purposes of the 'seed bank' is to promote content generation and 'raise good content to the top', then allowing people to recommend posts, pods, etc. would be one way to do that, without engendering the MySpace-esque cynicism and mean-spirit free-for-all that proved debilitating to the quality of community.

Siona also mentioned that another goal of the 'seed bank' was flagging spammers and those who abuse the mail privileges and harass other Zaadsters.

There is already a 'mark this as spam' option, which helps to 'flag' spam, and someone else here has suggested the option to block messages from those who abuse the open system by spamming or harassing.

Sincerely,
Jamie

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Matthew~ It's only my opinion, but I think the difference is all of the items you mention simply allowed us to communicate in a new fashion. The Trust System, while it certainly has a element of communication, also carries with it certain judgements and the power to change the community in a way the others didn't.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Now I really MUST go start my day, but as I was rummaging around in my own mistrusts and pessimism and fears, chewing on the predictions and anticipations made by others, I suddenly realized that I was not allowing the future to be different from the past, and not allowing THESE people to be different from others. Predictions: what do we know about predictions, from a spiritual perspective? And expectations of others' behavior: what do we know about THOSE expectations, spiritually?

Made a dent in my own admitted paranoic predictions……

Love to all, OM Bastet

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Amit, Rapunzel, O.M. Bastet,

I love it!  Thank YOU!  Amit, point well-taken.  Rapunzel, the ambassadors have always been our beta testers (in the ambassador pod) :)  I'm not sure if this got released to them or not.  Perhaps not, as we haven't had such a thriving community of ambassadors recently.  The thriving community has just been on the regular site.  O.M, :) :) :)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

This discussion has eaten up my afternoon like it has many people's.  I've read these posts, watched it unfold and wondered about myself, why I react so viscerally against this new idea.  It's tacky and unartful so I don't like it, but that's a matter of taste.  Like someone said above, it's a metaphor for the way real-world society operates and I don't like the way real-world society operates so I say 'why copy it?'.  But that's not what really bothers me.

I have to laugh when I see the comments from the team about 'empowering' us and us 'taking responsibility'.   Siona asked me if I could suggest a better system for screening out the spammers and harrassers.  Sure.  No problem.  If someone experiences a problem they complain to the moderators, the moderators check it out and if the complaint is valid they take action, either by warning the offender or removing them from the site.  (Of course a troll can just turn around and reapply with a different e-mail address and screenname so it's not perfect, but it works for me.  Trolls can jet around here under a dozen different aliases under the seeds system, too).  This is not about our responsibility it's about yours, the Zaadz team.  We are the community, you are the ones paid to fight the trolls.  Even Mayberry needed a sheriff, police and policing are not inherently bad ideas.

I believe you when you say your ideas are sincere, but I think ultimately you hope to save money by not hiring more moderators.  More traffic means more troll-fighting which means more moderators needed.  But more traffic also means more money coming in and you don't want to invest that new revenue in hiring more moderators.  Okay.  Sound business decision, I suppose, but I don't like being told it's empowering me. 

And honestly, having read and re-read the system I cannot understand how it will really regulate the trolls.  You obviously see some potential there that I.m missing.   All I think is going to happen is that you're not going to hire the needed moderators and I'm going to get spammed eventually.  Okay, I can live with that, as long as it's not too obnoxious or overwhelming.  Just don't tell me you're doing me a favor.

But this is not what really bothers me, either.  I'll think about it a little more and see if I can articulate in a later post.  It's the way this sort of thing operates on my needs, my insecurities, my obsessiveness, and my desire for unfettered free speech.