A few ideas regarding the new trust system

Hello,

I'd just like to make this post because I, like many others it seems , am quite concerned about the implications of the new trust system. I totally support the stance of attempting to provide the community with means to moderate itself, and thus I would like to make some suggestions regarding the trust system.

Firstly, I would ask that people need to give a reason whenever they hand out negative feedback. For one, the person whom the negaive feedback was given to could have a private list of all the negative feedback reasons which they have received, and so learn from their apparent mistakes. Also, if unjustified negative feedback has been given, the person in question would have some written proof of it.

Secondly, I would like to suggest some kind of double-check system to be in place when it comes to penalizing people for negative feedback. Maybe when someone is at the stage where they would be penalized, they could be given a warning, followed by a time period where they can redeem their perceived status in the community. If during that time period, their feedback ratings were in the clear, they wouldn't be penalized. If they were given a warning, had a neutral phase, and then given a warning again, the 'redeeming period' could be shortened. For the third time, it could mean penalization without warning.


Now, these are my ideas regarding the actual functioning of the trust system, but the other side of the coin is the discussion of its actual existence. I understand that Zaadz is growing rapidly, and that the page needs to implement ways of keeping the 'conscious', 'uplifting'-type vibe in the face of a stream of new members, and as stated, I support that.

But the very spirit inherent in this community is centered in freedom and essentially having a sanctuary within the Internet. A sanctuary where you can just be yourself. There are still many instances of people within society being closed-minded regarding some spiritual topics, but on Zaadz you can be sure that you will find open-minded people. They say that we're all the same, and if there can be closed-mindedness within the mainstream in regards to certain areas of spirituality, then why couldn't there be closed-mindedness towards specific viewpoints within 'conscious' communities as well? All that it takes for one person to have the fullness of their experience on Zaadz to be lessened are a few closed minds and clicks on the feedback button.

I just had a different idea: How about providing every Zaadz user with their own filter preferences which allow them to set clearly what they want to allow in their viewing of the Zaadz page? If someone didn't want to have certain words in their experience of using Zaadz, then they could block them from their view.

A quick sentence of legislative-speak added to the Terms could specify that people are responsible for setting their own Zaadz viewing preferences, and it would all be in place.

I feel that people only having control over their Zaadz experience would be a whole lot more 'conscious' then the other way around- to have people control another's experience.


Those are my thoughts regarding the trust system.

Thank you for listening, and have a nice day.


Thomas

Re: A few ideas regarding the new trust system

Thomas,
   Hi! All very valid points brother, I loved reading your thread.  I have a few things I want to throw out for consideration…a few thoughts I had while reading it.

The “justify your bad seeds” idea is awesome.  No problems there, as far as I can tell.  As long as people are honest, tactful, and mature about there criticisms.

As far as the “warning system” goes…in one aspect, it's a great idea.  We are all about love and forgiveness aren't we?   And just because someone, say, misreads a post, gets highly offended, and responds “enthusiastically” doesn't mean they should get marked as a negative user.   However, watering down the flagging system might also have its cons.  If someone is dominating a post by being narrow-minded, tactless, crude, and immature, then wouldn't it be better if the person was flagged down immediately? rather than letting the chaos ensue for a long period of time, during which the thread, which may have once been incredibly meaningful and inspiring, dies out due to a lack of interest/disgust with the negative writer.  A variation on your idea just popped into mind.  How about a system where a comment or blog is only flagged after it has received a set number of  “bad seeds”?   That way, if something is truly extreme enough to be a cause for alarm, it will be flagged quickly, and something that might simply be radical/discomforting, but honest/true, will still have a chance at spurring some positive thoughts and changes.

My biggest concern is with the “self-determined filter” method.  First off, filtering words has very little to do with actually filtering ideas.  I suppose if you filtered out the word “communism,” you probably wouldn't get much interaction with someone who was communist.  However, the idea of filtering out swears and cussing is all full of strange loopholes and cons.  I don't think cussing is necessarily a bad thing.  Swears are simply words that society has given large amounts of power and influence.  They are often used for negative attention and reactions, causing many people to shun them entirely, which is sad.  But swears can also be used to accurately illustrate the extremely passionate emotions a person might be feeling.  The right words in the right place can rally a town, city, state, or nation….and maybe even the whole world. 
       Also, the filter idea might indeed make people more comfortable, or, rather, prevent them finding anything discomforting.  But comfort is in NO WAY guaranteed to be a good thing.  I have learned some of the most meaningful and awe-inspiring things by being in situations, and reading/seeing/hearing things, that made me uncomfortable.  If someone finds a post that goes against what they believe (potentially making them uncomfortable), two wonderful things can happen.  They may grow to a new level of open-mindedness, and rationally consider whether some of the discomforting points made might actually be true.  Or they might be spurred into a never-before experienced state of courage, where they openly and honestly debate the discomforting views, an action which might strengthen their views as well as help shape those of another.   I realize that being offended is not a strictly positive thing.  But allowing people to completely avoid any material that they may disagree with, or be disquited by, is, in essence, allowing people to close themselves any a sterile little comfort bubble where their spiritual, moral, and personal growth may be severely handicapped. 

Great writing Thomas.  Keep striving to make this site, and the world, a better place.  Peace.

-Zeb    

Re: A few ideas regarding the new trust/ seeds system

This is such a remarkable thread; unfortunately drowned out by the now-infamous thread that has been locked down by the mods.

That is a lovely lesson on self-moderating; if we can do that–we don't have to be moderated by others.

TZ,  I loved your post with the well thought-out points: for people who're flagged to know why; though I too see the difficulty with the filter system, as does Zeb.

I would like to bring this thread back; because I wanted to request for a Flag for Review feature of members profile pages who seem to not be in harmony with Zaadz's environment. I don't mean ones I personally disagree with or find distasteful [because I can even disagree with myself!!]; but recently I came across one or two profile pages which were empty; having followed blog comments which had seemed not to foster community but to disrupt it.

I emailed the TEam to let them know; and  don't think this is the best way. They can't do much with 1 email when there are so many members and lots of emails. I think the Team want us to moderate; so the way they have a Flag for Review set up on blogs, we need on the profile page too; and also on Blog comments pages. And of course, only if many in the community flag someone for review, need it be brought to the committee that may be set  up by Sandra; so that it's kept as fair as possible.

And I think we should be able to keep an account of who we've Flagged for review; and whom to follow up with.

I'm not writing this too well, but hope it's clear.