Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Some of the Z-Teams's posts on the various Seeds blogs hint at/ mention changes and modifications to the way that people are moderated on Zaadz.

Here are some questions and suggestions on that:

1. Would the community at large help in deciding which people actually become members? I'm guessing the answer to this, is No.

2. What about mentoring / using an Ambassadorof those who would like to help new entrants?  [ you couldstart a Mentor pod for this, or reassign the Ambassadors] This could be included on the welcome email so that new members are open to this idea. Many people join, but don't get into writing a profile, for example.  Also, as has frequently been pointed out, many who introduce themselves on the Lounge, are not responded to. I have sometimes sent them a message to  help them to navigate Zaadz, if they have asked; but not always. I can see arguments against this thought as well; which is why I'm asking what people think about those who'd like to stay a little anonymous on Zaadz - only join pods, e.g., and not blog + not write a profile + not invite friends.

3. Regarding seeds: why have a reputation, which is so subjective and seemingly unnecessary and which in any case we can see, if it's important; by how many views/comments a blog/ profile gets and so on; and which after a point will become self-perpetuating? Also, reputations will depend on such things as whether I have enough seeds when I go into a profile/blog to give my feedback. Why not allow the seeds we collect, to be the “reputation”; if that is important? This way, active members, who seem to be more committed to the community, are given more weight: our own actions, not the actions of others, determine our reputation. This is the kind of self-empowerment that seems clear-cut and meaningful.

4. When we leave a seed-like comment on a member's blog/profile  it need not be anonymous. Let it be like a shout-out that the Z-team can evaluate by the weight/reputation of the poster. For this, we don't need to accumulate seeds; but there is a weight to our comment depending on our rep as outlined in pt. 3. Also, if I get a comment, I can know why I have received it. This kind of moderation will help us to see our reflection and shadow; and help members decide whether or not to give it importance.

5. Unwelcome members: in any case, under the Seeds system, the Z-team has to monitor the seeds a member is getting;and try to figure out whether or not to ask them to fold. The community may be able to moderate under the new Seeds system; but not actually take an action. Why not make it simpler by  having a button like a Spam button [I think someone else mentioned this too] which alerts the team? This way, again, it's not anonymous, you know the rep of the member who's sent the alert, and will be able to take the necessary action - or not.

What does everyone here think about this?

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Meenakshi! Thanks for pointing this out.

1) We had volunteers from the community help decide who to accept for ages. So we're on the same page there.

2) Part of the Ambassador / volunteer program was meant to help welcome new people into the community and help them feel comfortable here. I'd love to encourage that, and we'll (the team) will talk about how we can generate and encourage some energy there.

3) Ai. This one is complicated! The reputation depends on how much positive feedback (how many thank yous) you've been given, as well as how long you've been on the site. We could make it so that it only depended on site activity, but this might mean that people could run around posting unhelpful content (or even cruel notes) and gain a 'good reputation.' We thought distributing it among the community–so that those with whom you share this space also have a say in whether someone is a good and generous presence–made things more fair.

4) I love this. I'd love for the “I like this!” to be saved, so that you can go back and track what you “liked,” and so that others can see what other sort of content you'd recommend. I'm not sure this is what you're getting at, but yes, in the interests of transparency and accountability, it should be the case that a name is attached.

5) If you look at the posts now, there is a little flag, similar to the spam system in the inbox. When a post gets flagged a certain number of times, we're alerted. (Jake's still working on the automagic 'folding'…) So yes, on board there, too.

Does that help? Thank you again for pointing me over to this post. I didn't see it before.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Yes thanks Siona. This helps.

One point re pt.3.  You have to decide about the Community, much like Einstein suggested we decide about the Universe - whether it is a friendly or an unfriendly place. As you can see, all those who are opposed to SEeds, feel that Zaadz is a friendly place.

Now don't take this to heart, dear Siona; but In your message, you'll notice that you assume both, at different times. When you say that the community can be trusted not to make this a popularity contest; you are trusting it. When you say that the community can have some members who may post too much and therefore get seeds, you are mistrusting.

In other words, the community is not a homogenous whole; and I think we all realize it. So, even if you continue the reputation-seeds thing; what is to prevent someone from “running around posting unhelpful content”, getting many seeds, and then continuing more of the same? What is the objective standard here?

I really think that if you can run this by the TEam–it will more closely parallel the change we wish to see in the world; where each person is responsible for their own actions….

Think on it.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Completely agree! I don't think there is an objective standard. I think both are true.

Any system has to include consideration of the shadow. I think Jake has done well with incorporating that into the design, but it would be naive to think that the dark can every be fully done away with. It can only be looked at with awareness.

Seeds grow, yes, but they also have roots that descend downwards…

Maybe we can think of some way that would 'enlighten' this system more? Some means to encourage awareness of what's selected as valuable–or flagged as harmful?

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Meenakshi -
I play Eve online, and the game is extremely complicated. For the first 30 days all new players automatically have access to the “rookie chat channel”, which is moderated by experienced players who have agreed to help. I know there is no direct parallel here (we don't even have IM at this moment!) but the idea of an area where new members can be mentored by someone who's been here for a minute or two seems like it would be helpful.
It can be really complicated to figure out even where to ask a question - if it doesn't turn up in the FAQ's, there are an awful lot of options, which isn't as helpful as it sounds like it would be. Sometimes too many possible answers just turns into another kind of question.
I don't know, just early Saturday morning rambling here…

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Rapunzel and Meenakshi,

I love the ideas you're both expressing around mentoring.  Mentoring can be very helpful here on the community.  I aslo see tremendous value in mentoring towards “being the change” in the world.  We have big possibilities with co-created active mentoring programs here on Zaadz.

I would love to explore these ideas more.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Meenakshi,

My dear and wise friend.  You are so thoughtful and clear in expressing it. 

I found myself mentoring early on here at Zaadz.  It was never a thought or possibility in my mind coming here to Zaadz.  Yet, in very little time at all, two people here at Zaadz (with nothing in common with one another) each seemed to turn to me for my opinion about very personal things that were going on in their lives.  I discovered a deep trust in them for who I was and from where my insights into their circumstances would come.

I see potential for abuse but of course, great potential for good, in a formal mentoring system.  The issue that concerns me is, in the cases I just cited, it was the individuals need and the “all that is” bring us together.  It developed over time but never was officially stated and still isn't.

They both know I love and care about them and they know there is absolutely NO reason in the world why it would be so but it is.

Hence, my continued resistance to anything that separates us or would attempt to remove these naturally organic currents from flowing.

Deborah

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi everyone!

I love this thread. I love it’s balance, friendliness and energy. Its a very interesting contrast to the one that opens with a negation: “the seeds must go” or something like that. Not to get off track, but isn’t that telling a little? I’m not saying either is better: I’m just saying that they have a very different feel, the two threads. I resonate more to this.

What I begin to wonder, reading everyone’s words, is this: would we be having this discussion if everyone felt that Zaadzs were naturally self-governing? because this seems to me the crux of it: we feel a system of self-government, or at least the seeds system, would be abused, or is just fundamentally wrong. I don’t know if this is accurate, but it almost seems like the community as a whole doesn’t trust itself with that power. And it seems if we were really doing a good job of taking care of this little site, this conversation wouldn’t be happening– if we were given a seed system, we’d laugh it off, and simply not use it. Trusting everyone to be cool about it (and/or ignore it), knowing how little it mattered anyway.

Like the Taoists say, in the best government, no one ever thinks about government.

I for one, have thought about this sort of issue and zaadz before the debut of the system. not because a seed system or the like is necessary– in a perfect senario, it’s not– but because I’ve found that the conditions which comprise a senario where such a thing is unthinkable to me have not been met here. meaning: people who spew negativity and occasionally hurtful things continue to do so. No matter if there are few of them: one person damaged is too many people damaged, to me, always. (and what is damage? A modicum of psychic pain)

And even in the intense reaction to the seeds: I asked someone in an email recently: “If one were to give buddha a loaded gun, would one have much cause for concern?”

I really don’t care what the method is by which we all create a site that works for all of us. Many feel the site was working for them, and if no one felt there was any trouble here or on the horizon, then the system shouldn’t ever have been invented.

But it was, maybe there were motivations behind that, beliefs, desires. Maybe we should be talking first about the root of the issue?

Or, since I’m not quite sure what that is, asking:

What’s at the root of this issue that has so many people so affected?

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Sorry for the double post, it’s just than an answer occured to me, and I won’t be able to sleep till I write it down… or I’ll sleep better if I do. And so:

a theory:
When they saw the seed system, some people among us immediately saw it as an oppertunity for the dark side of human nature to ruin zaadz. This was a frightening thought, for many, or to put it better, bought out negative emotions. Fear, frustration, anger, these are the dark side of human nature.

And so, simply by fearing the dark side of human nature would come out on zaadz, the dark side of human nature (fear, dischord) was on zaadz.

And now we are faced with answering to how to deal with this? I can see how the seed system, mearly by asking this question, could be immensly… activating.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Beyond “yes or no” for seeds, here’s my question:

- It’s the first time I think that the Team proposed a feature that created so much polarized debate.

This raises the question of authority and power:
- does Zaadz members co-create Zaadz?
- Can they say only “no” to make Zaadz change?

I think as a whole we are here working on feeling the boundaries, defining the quality, limits and sytle of power that each one has(The Zaadz team, the members).

We can think that we are debating about a trust system to avoid a kind of “ennemy” that could destroy us from the inside.

But I think that, in an unconscious way, we are working here, as a group, on trust through different hierarchical levels.

Before thinking of “moderating” and developing this tool or that tool, I sincerely believe that hierarchical boundaries have to be defined.

And for that, as a member, I would like to know if:
- my creating power is limited to the content of Zaadz (my blog, my posts and so on)
- my creating power can extend itself to the form of Zaadz (and not only it’s content). If that be the case as it seems, then:

- is my creating power on the form limited to saying “no” - which is I think the case now, like the case with blinking adds and the seed system
- does my creating power extends to a co-creative process much wider than saying “no”. Am I part of a creative team about certain kind of processes that generate form on Zaadz?

If my creative formal power extend beyond “no”, then I think we need to create working groups of members that are going to work with the team on formal content, which is not the case at the moment (although I may be mistaking as there could exists such things that I don’t know about).

Of course I’d prefere a co-creative formal process, as my creativity would not be limited to content. But if that is not the case I think it should be clearly stated so I can adjust to it.

For the moment we are witnessing a “reward/punishment” between the Team and Zaadzsters:
- the Team members rewards the members who agree with them with such sayings as”thank you, thank you”, and they are defensive and try to explain their system to members who are saying no - not getting a thank you is an implicite “punishment”
- the members are sidings giving rewards and punishment to the Team - attacking authority (metaphors such as tyranny, Bush, hitler).

This is happening ‘cause there is confusions in the boundaries.

I see this trust system not important in itself at the moment, but the process of clarification of boundaries immensely more important.

That is what I think we should work on for the moment.

Basically now, I would like the Team to say if we are in a co-creative formal process or not. I may not get my answer as it may be the case hat the Team does not no for the moment. But if there idea is clear on the matter, I think it should be stated.

I send you all much love,

patrick

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Patrick,

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Dear Ones,

The best I can say about this seeds thing is that it seems like beta-policy to me.  Policy is ok, perhaps necessary, but requires policing.  It seems as if the intention is to get the membership to accept this carrot/stick-like thing and police itself - freeing the mods from the all-too-occasional grind of keeping the dialogue on the high side - a mostly thankless job, kind of like bathroom duty.

Self-review, personal moderation and freedom of speech can make for some potent combinations, but “good points” and “bad points” seem, well, sophmoric to me.  It may be that the “youthfulness” of Zaadz does call for this level of simplicity, its just that, despite the obviously good intentions, the elegance does not seem to be there.  Imo,  the best innovative solutions to apparently intractable problems are characterized by both simplicty and elegance.

i find near uniform traction with Patrick's insights and questions above, adding:  How open is the Team to the notion that this “seeds” project be a trial proposal for a set period of time, say 1-3 months, while allowing anyone over a certain “seed” threshold that is willing,  to participate in a creative and solution-oriented dialogue open to the membership at large?

Yer pal,
Michael

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Michael,

Your post feels quite wise, and reading it a second time, something stuck out.

There’s a lot of division right now perhaps between mods and pods (sorry, had to rhyhm) but this division in and of itself, in our heads, this polarization– is it real?

I had this flash of metaphor when reading your post– Mods are members of this community stuck washing toilets.

Michael, I don’t believe you should have to wash my toilet. Furthermore, if you feel you all are washing everyone’s toilets– not saying you are, but what if?– then you are members of the community, you are taking on more than you should have to, if you feel you are.

So the important question also is: just how did most of the moderators feel about the old system? The other seed thread has largely taken care of how the community feels, although I encourage all to chime in: perhaps it was three parts: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and one part “was it really working? not sure.”

Well, that’s well and good, but if these threads have shown anything its that we don’t quite understand just HOW zaadz works and doesn’t work. Perhaps people feel, as you all are authorities on these matters, perhaps people feel a debalance of power? Its ironic in a sense considering the goals of the seed system, but–

Do you guys regularly say how these things are affecting you, to us? We’re all zaadz– how do you mods feel about the old system, the new system, the discussion? Get it out, get it out, let us hear! (maybe, if you wanna : )

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Alan: I know… isn't it fascinating? I feel the same way. I trust, totally, that this system won't be abused, and that the self-governing mentioned above is possible. And if not, well, I suppose us 'benign dictators' who've been manning the gates and moderating the place thus far can always re-establish control.

If not–if this becomes impossible–well, it'll be up to the community to shine.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Patrick's thoughts seem to me the most important I have yet read about this whole System. It goes along with Einstein's belief that no problem can be solved on the level from which it was created, or it exists. We always have to go UP a level, to a meta-level, to really get an “elegant” (great concept, Michael) solution.

99% of the posts from both Team and members have been on the SAME level, not a meta-level.

That said, I believe I SEE a co-creative “form-al” process in action, as the System has already been modified based on feedback. It just didn't start out as a large-scale co-creative process, nor is there the kind of system of that process which Michael points to. Some of the Team posts have described the beta-testing and co-creativeness which DID go on before launch.

My perfectionist self is mightily resisting going through each and every post on the subject everywhere on the site and pulling out all the great ideas suggested by folks, positive do-able alternatives and tweaks people have come up with. But I hope SOMEONE is doing that. There are LOTS of fabulous suggestions, and the Team has said they are open to all. Open to all and aware of all are EXTREMELY different, as there are hundreds of posts.

Is there a Virgo in the house?

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Alan, right on, Bro!!!!

Here is my version of the “root” and it echoes what you say:

Forgive cross-post, this is a slightly edited excerpt from my recent comment to the latest Zaadz Team Blog from Siona:

I have finally figured out to my own satisfactory understanding, what the big Divide is.

It seems to me that the supporters of and the objectors to the new seed system are making very different predictions about how people will behave. That's it. Each person is either optimistic about how people will behave within the system, or is pessimistic about how people will behave within the system. When I read carefully, I can see that nearly everyone is making predictions.

But since both are predictions, there is another group of Wait and See.

If we come from the spiritual perspective that others—and our expectations of how others will behave—are simply mirrors for ourselves, we would turn inward after making our predictions, and learn more about ourselves.

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Yeah– and perhaps we’d think about what happens when we make predictions. Law of attraction– we know it, correct? When I heard it, it was from a very high source, and this high source says thought and law of attractive, as the universe works on positive, interact on positive. meaning, if you think: “I don’t want to ever have a car accident in my new car”, the positive is all that comes through: I + want + car accident + new car.” Chances are you’ll find yourself sweaty and nervous, looking at every car around you like they’re battering rams.

If people think: “I’m scared this seed system will tear zaadz apart,” what comes through is:

I + scared + seed system + tear zaadz apart.

And this is what is attracted. Dangerous stuff, these thoughts we can allow.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

“Each person is either optimistic about how people will behave within the system, or is pessimistic about how people will behave within the system.
[…]  If we come from the spiritual perspective that others—and our expectations of how others will behave—are simply mirrors for ourselves, we would turn inward after making our predictions, and learn more about ourselves.”

OHHHHH SNAP! Hehehe, this made me smile! :D

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Meenakshi - thank you thank you for starting this thread. I was tossing and turning last night thinking about doing something similar, a thread which was titled in a such a way as to inspire something more than “I like this” or “I don't like this” (and all the multiple variations of these two…).

So, to your points:

2.  Re Mentoring/Ambassadors: As you know I have suggested something along the lines of a group of “Elders”. (See my post  here). I believe this should be different to the Ambassadors - although it could include an Ambassador. At first I suggested that this group be voted on by members of zaadz, but after reading Grey's response, I agree with him:

I'm no expert on holacracy yet, but I was thinking that it would be good to take Sandra's Elders idea and extend it downward a few holarchical levels. So we'd have a small group of the most trusted Elders at the top, then a somewhat larger group of well-trusted community members responsible for supporting the Elders, an even larger group of trusted zaadzsters below this group to provide support to them, and so on… turtles all the way down (to how ever many levels seems appropriate).

Then perhaps the seeds system could be used to help determine who could qualify for a given level of community administration. And maybe the Elders (or even the other levels) could be elected in some way (although not necessarily purely democratically), perhaps with an individual's seed reputation helping to determine how much weight their vote has…. Just brainstorming here.

Self-review, personal moderation and freedom of speech can make for some potent combinations, but “good points” and “bad points” seem, well, sophmoric to me.  It may be that the “youthfulness” of Zaadz does call for this level of simplicity, its just that, despite the obviously good intentions, the elegance does not seem to be there.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Sandra.

“p.s. Om Bastet I AM a virgo, but an extremely messy and chaotic one ;-)”

Oh?  How is it that you can manage to make such good sense with your writing?  And, how do you find the time to do all that other writing and the time to put together the thinking and the writing for posts such as above?  Seems to me that you bring exactly the kind of curiosity, eldership, interest, and word-smarts, that would benefit the transition that Zaadz seems to be experiencing - despite your “extremely messy and chaotic . . ” er, Virgo'ness.

I like where Grey went above only to feel frustratIed at his “…  just brainstorming here.”  (emphasis mine)  I concur with his support of your “elder” concept, (perhaps a consensus-oriented but ultimately voting body) as informed by a think-tank advisory body whose agenda was to unpack the suffering around here and get to   How do we encourage if not require that the dialogue in posts both honor freedom of expression and “reverence for the enemy?”  Some form of remedial-to-post-graduate education may be required for everyone, even us, er, “older” types around here.

A curriculum in effective internet communication comes to mind.  One that would require something of people appealing for posting-membership to certain pods must complete before being “released” from a “probationary” state prior to full membership.  Though difficult, this would not seem to require a rocket science approach, but more a basic tutorial in reverent free speech and an agreement to adhere to the principles as much as possbile while accepting full responsibility when not.  God knows we have plenty of material from past “exchanges” to point to for example of what doesn't seem to work.  As well, and gratefully, there are far more exchanges that tipify the blessings of sustained reverence and curiosity no matter what the level of annoyance or self-doubt.

Though awareness seems on the “rise,” on balance, its gravitas seems to lift the shadow side of the scale up further into view.  I am pleasantly surprised to be experiencing a “retreat” of sorts from my open-mouthed dismay (self-doubt shadow) when I first read of this new-order “trust” experiment with the seeds and all.  Surprised, I have found, just recently, that I do have an interest in seeing Zaadz make the most of its opportunity, now, in this time of need and apparent urgency.  

Zaadz seems more a nation to me than a family.  Thinking nationally, a merger of mutual interests between the business side of Zaadz and its more community-minded membership, could be immediately served by some deeper-rooted governance. 
My skills are more on the conceptualization and development side while diminishing somewhat towards the implementation pole.  Yet, as a student, I realize that there is great benefit near for me in the practice of both.

It might be helpul to consider fostering a sense of welcome and “privelege” around here.  That attitude would inherently include a certain set of requirements necessary to obtain such things as introductory, intermediate, and advanced priveleges.  At first, such a project might seem to require more oversight and effort than it is worth, but if the vitality and continuity of internet communications, especially in a hothouse such as this is to be secured, then the effort, by definition, is worth it.

To this end, each pod, as the cultivation of just one, or perhaps a few more people, can be self-governing within the overall policy base of Zaadz. 

As they say in baseball, “Purposely stepping on the outstretched foot of the first-baseman as he catches the ball and you are “out” is not baseball.  Determining what is and is not Zaadz baseball is a worthy quest imo.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Michael: I like where Grey went above only to feel frustratIed at his “…  just brainstorming here.”  (emphasis mine)

Yeah, you know me, Michael. Never one to be too forceful in my opinions until I've had a chance to flesh them out more (must be my “nineness” showing through, too ;-).  I'm working on standing behind my ideas more, but now and then stuff like this slips out!

Thanks for calling me in it, brother!

Metta,
Grey

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

HI Siona : ) You said:

Any system has to include consideration of the shadow.

What is the shadow? Who determines what that shadow is?

More importantly, I feel that the “shadow” must be trusted as well, because to trust the “light” but not the “shadow” is not trust. Real trust is letting go, to perceive the duality of light and shadow as indivisible polar aspects within an integral whole and to have faith in these forces balancing out. Fear and distrust of the shadow is not trust.

If you want to talk about trusting this community, you can't just trust the perceived “light” group, and distrust the “shadow” group. This is divisive, judgmental, and preferential. You must trust the community as a whole. This is trust. If you start to divide people into light and shadow, elders and novices, trustworthy and not trustworthy, then you are creating a conflict of “opposites”. No good will come of this.

Creating a system in which people are encouraged to post for the sake of posting creates an environment in which people become more and more focused on getting seeds to fuel reputations in a popularity contest. It emphasizes quantity over quality, and gives some people a louder voice than others. I think this is just wrong. Like I said in another post: You don't need to make someone “lose their voice” to silence them, you can simply make your voice louder and drown their voice out…

In case you haven't read it, here is my previous post that I am referring to:

The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake


Anyways, we all agreed to the “Terms and Conditions” when we became members of this community. I don't see why we don't simply scrap the “Trust” System and go back to the previous system with minor adjustments. Namely, a non-anonymous flagging system in which the flaggers must identify themselves and give a proper explanation of why they flagged this member. Once the member in question is flagged a certain amount of times, the administrators should be alerted. If the administrators find that the “Terms and Conditions” have been violated, then the member in question should be put up for review in order to determine whether to give a warning to the member in question, or to boot them, depending on the severity of the infraction. This should be done in cooperation with an elected group of moderators who have been voted into these positions by the entire Zaadz community for the purpose of dealing with cases in which members have violated the “Terms and Conditions”. The accused member should also have a voice in defending themselves.

However, if the member in question has not violated the “Terms and Conditions”, then they are not put up for review and they are allowed to go about their business. Certain members will inevitably flag other members for petty and immature reasons, and I believe that these people should be held accountable. If a member flags enough members who have not violated the 'Terms and Conditions”, then these accusers should be put up for review for continued slander and baseless accusations. Flagging is a serious thing, and people should not just be able to flag at will without facing the consequences. The great thing about freedom of choice is that if someone doesn't like what someone else is saying, they can simply change the channel. If you don't like Bill O' Reilly, then don't listen to him. It's that simple!

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

I agree with so much of this thread! This thread is awesome.

What’s interesting about the “carrot-stick” analogy is, HOWEVER people feel about the seed system, co-creation cannot start fundamentally until the co-creators decide to co-create.

Is that not what’s happening in a sense now? At least– the energy has begun. Even if it takes some worrying forms (hitler comparisons, etc.)

This energy is:

“Hey, this Zaadz site is ours, not yours moderators. You can’t just go around making changes!”

Beautiful, no? This is ownership. But, although the R word is a word with bad connotations, where is there ownership without responsibility? In other words, if you feel something is “yours,” then you love it: if you love it, then you act out of love towards it, and if it’s going in what seems to you a bad direction, you are motivated to (in non-control) act as responsibly as you can, knowing that means that whatever directions things go, they go.

BUT, if you have nice moderators who want to listen to what you have to say and impliment your discussions and decisions, whether or not you know it, you are in a paradigm of co-creation, and no one has taken away your will. All you would have to do in this senario is as a community make a decision to co-create.

Carrot stick it was. We broke the stick, lets eat some tasty carrot.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

I'm reading through all this, and I will try to respond to everyone later tonight (though it is getting late!), but I just wanted to throw in a grin at this comment. Thank you, Alan. And yes, this thread is awesome.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Reading all this I am reminded of a recent faculty meeting I attended where we were discussing a brand new reporting system we were to be using regarding tracking our activities. One of the faculty members raised his hand and said, “I think we ought to complain.” When someone pointed out to him that we hadn't used the system at all yet, he acknowledged this was true and he had not even tried to use it yet, but he insisted we complain. The rest of us declined to join him. Such wisdom at a faculty meeting was a rare joy to witness.

Just this morning I listened to a podcast from the Upaya Zen Center regarding complaining and gratefulness (http://www.dharmapodcast.org/category/podcasts/) that said we should be grateful for opportunities where we can turn complaints into positive action. Complaining is a projection into the past and/or future, a point made by many here already. Complaining takes up lots of negative energy, and I thought this place was all about positive energy. Where is our wisdom here? Let's try it with positive energy, and if we don't like it then we can change it to make it better.

AL

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

PS: What does it say about zaadz when a “trust” system generates so much mistrust? I can't help but notice the terrible irony in this.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

given: PS: What does it say about zaadz when a “trust” system generates so much mistrust? I can't help but notice the terrible irony in this.

~~~

How much mistrust is out there, exactly?  I've seen mistrust expressed by a small, very vocal minority.  Out of - last I heard - 113,000 users I'm not sure exactly how much mistrust has been generated by these moves. 

Besides which, if implementing some kind of reputation system costs a certain amount of span while increasing the depth of the community, then for me at least, it would be hella worth it (depending on how much depth and how much span are involved, at least).

spiral out,
arthur

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Arthur,

Good response on trust / mistrust.  Thank you.

I like what Siona observed, when we presence trust, mistrust appears… this is normal cause and effect, and no system exists without it.  It's a good thing.

For those who experience a sense of mistrust… it may be because the seed system does not resonate with them, and some may not even know why it doesn't.

I feel Zaadsters like the sense of individual equality that is an inherent value of this community.  Some people could not conceive of the idea of giving of themselves inside of a competing duality of 'pure giving' versus 'popular recognition'.  Currently, the seed system incents the latter, at the risk of the former.   It is a fact in any system, is that you get what you measure.

We certainly need to give the seeds program a shot, but only on the basis that the program can grow and mature over time, and that the fundamental premise of giving remains pure.

I giggled at a popular blog last week by psychedelic, called “if only I had a pair of tits”

  http://psychedelic.zaadz.com/blog/2007/11/if_i_only_had_a_pair_of_tits

While I enjoyed the humor, there is an important message in this blog.  Noise sells, sex sells, often at the expense of the values of others. 

With love,

Dave

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

I think some people are missing the point… There is no system to measure trust, just as there is no system to measure joy, and no system to measure love…

One cannot trust someone 82%, or be be 47% happy, or love 65%… You either do or you don't.

The “Trust” system is in fact a “Distrust” system, because it attempts to measure trust. Trust is either there or it isn't.

If I walk down the street to the grocery store and trust my surroundings, then that means that I am unafraid of the people, places, and things within my environment. I walk without fear because I have love for everything within my surroundings and express that through my actions.

If I walk down the street to the grocery store and distrust my surroundings, then that means that I will probably be looking around left and right, sizing everyone and everything up, and perhaps even carrying a gun to defend myself in case someone tries to rob me. To make matters worse, there's probably another guy fearing the same thing, sizing me up, and wondering whether I want to rob him. Who knows, maybe that same guy will see me reaching for my cellphone and shoot me pre-emptively just in case I might have been reaching for my gun.

An environment of fear and distrust is not an environment that I want to encourage or be a part of…

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi lucid!

I agree, there is no system to measure trust, but where is there here a system of distrust? I see none. To me, that is where perhaps we disagree. In my head, if you can’t measure trust, you also can’t measure the negation of it. As in: zero is not a number: how can negative zero be a number?

If I trust my enviornment, myself, then whether or not I carry a gun is a non-issue. I wouldn’t, simply because I wouldn’t need one, and guns are heavy. But neither would I fear guns, any gun, yours, mine, theirs, his, hers, anyones.

I humbly suggest, by your post, and the law of attraction, you are doing the thing you exactly don’t want, encouraging an environment of fear and distrust.

I could be very wrong. I don’t know. But what I know is, in a senario where trust is the norm, the conversations about this seed system would feel different. The word “fear,” the word “mistrust,” wouldn’t be there. And what can put thoughts in our heads for which we did not ourselves lay seeds?

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Alan, the point is that once we become focused on trusting or not trusting, trust is lost.
 
I really don't see how I am creating fear and distrust by stating my concern about a system of judgment and control. Are you afraid of my statements? Do you distrust me because of my post? If so, then maybe you should look within yourself and think things over. If not, then what are you talking about? It seems like you are suggesting that I am spreading fear and negativity by simply questioning the Zaadz Team's rationale for creating a system that I disagree with. If dissent and disagreement encourage fear and distrust, then this community is in big trouble. Not because of dissent or disagreement, but because of the complacent and unquestioning mentality that this implies.

By the way, how is carrying a tool of deadly force around your community a non-issue? The issue isn't whether you personally are afraid of guns or not, the issue is the type of fearful and distrustful mentality that would see a need for one.

What scenario is this that you are talking about where “trust is the norm”. If anything, this “Trust” System shows that trust is not the norm, and that Zaadz has become a place to judge and measure the trustworthyness and reputation of our peers and rank people by how far they have progressed in a popularity contest.

Also, when I think of trust, I think of transparency. Has anyone noticed that you can't see your own “reputation”, that the meter is hidden? Ask yourselves why…

If they're going to measure people's “trustworthyness”, why don't they make everyone's “reputation” ranking transparent? Why do they not show who gave you how many seeds? Shouldn't the giver of the seeds at least give a little shout out or explanation? Hmm… This is a ranking system that is totally behind the scenes, so what does that tell you about how much the administrators trust the community? The result of this non-transparency is calculated: It seems like everyone is equal, but behind the surface they are not. They are ranked and given a louder/softer voice depending on their popularity. The official ranking of the members is hidden in order to give the illusion of equality, and hides the ugly realities of a system that grades people's “reputation”.

Keep in mind that I am not advocating a more transparent seeds system, I totally disagree with the entire Trust System and everything it stands for. I am not saying this from a position of fear, anger, or hate. I am saying this from a position of truth, compassion, and love. Let us come up with a system that is transparent and doesn't rank people's popularity or give anyone a louder voice than another. Peace : )

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

My point about guns was: I don’t need guns, I don’t have need to kill. But again, they’re right: People kill people. with guns. People abuse eachother, with whatever tools they use– it’s not the tools, it’s the people. And yeah, we can find the best tools for us, and we should, but I think it’s a false assumption to assume anything can change us in ways we don’t agree to be changed. That’s all I meant about carrying a gun: I wouldn’t do so because it’s inconvenient (part of that being illegal), espeically considering as a peaceful being I have no use for a gun. it’s not that I think carrying a gun would somehow make me a violent person. If it did, that would be because I had a violent person inside of me… and then even the gun might be a good thing, because it would force me to deal with what’s in me, and grow.

I think all discussion about this is good and necessary, as long as it needs to take place. And I love dissent, it’s the most fertile ground.

About transparency– I haven’t asked myself why, and since I didn’t create the system, asking myself why wouldn’t necessarily be the wisest decision, given we’re talking with everyone, including them, right now. What I mean is– asking myself why could lead to a range of different conclusions, probably not based on all the facts, especially as the decision was doubtless a result of a moderator dialouge. If I make these conclusions, I might be understanding or misunderstanding, but that would be a matter of how in line who I think the moderators are is with who the moderators actually are. If I were wrong, I could fall into something like a downward spiral of misunderstanding… most “fights” I think are these spirals, nothing else.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Right now, Lucid, in this world, those who “shout'–who are abusive or disrespectful or merely outspoken–have louder voices than others. Those who are aggressive and belligerent and don't mind insulting others get noticed. Merely because of their 'might' they're louder. It's the way things go. This system was intended to help ensure that, on Zaadz, this wasn't the case. It was intended so that those who were blessed with more gratitude, those who were respected and cherished in the community for their generosity and concern and respect for the values we grew this site around, would be granted a bit of a metaphorical megaphone so their input would be weighted more and thus would even the playing field a bit–so that these calmer, quieter beings could be heard along with those who are just generally outspoken. We put a great deal of thought and energy and consideration into creating some kind of process that would faciliate this, and while it's true that all systems risk being abused, we thought that this community would be capable of using it in the way it was meant to be used.

I hope that clarifies things.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Siona : ) With all due respect, you are responding to me like a White House press secretary. I think you know what I meant by “louder voice”, and it had nothing to do with abusive and disrespectful people who can be dealt with according to the “Terms and Conditions” without any need for this popularity contest. I have barely noticed any abusive people in the “hottest” discussions in my time here at Zaadz, it's been healthy discourse 99% of the time, so saying that abusive people get more attention is simply not true.

It was intended so that those who were blessed with more gratitude, those who were respected and cherished in the community for their generosity and concern and respect for the values we grew this site around, would be granted a bit of a metaphorical megaphone so their input would be weighted more and thus would even the playing field a bit–so that these calmer, quieter beings could be heard along with those who are just generally outspoken.

In other words, the people that are the most complacent and unquestioning get to drown out the people who bring up important issues that the masses dismiss because it disturbs their “calm and quiet” self-congratulation parties in their happy caves. It seems like you are using a few disrespectful and disruptive people as an excuse to marginalize a much larger group of rational and critical thinkers who respectfully question the status quo and bring up “controvertial” political and and socio-economic issues that Gaiam/Zaadz would rather not give too much attention to.  After all, you're trying to grow and gain a much larger audience so that you can make more money, so it's only natural that you would want to cater more and more to the sensibilities of the masses who think that buying the products that your website advertises and being “conscious consumers” is enough to “change the world”. It's all about the benjamins right? Yay for “conscious” capitalism!

And what about transparency? Isn't that a huge aspect of trust? Why haven't you made everyone's “reputation” ranking transparent? Why do you not show who gave us seeds, and allow the seed giver to add a shout out or explanation? Why is everything anonymous and behind the curtain?

 This is a ranking system that is totally behind the scenes, so what does that tell you about how much the administrators trust the community? The result of this non-transparency is calculated: It seems like everyone is equal, but behind the surface they are not. They are ranked and given a louder/softer voice depending on their popularity. The official ranking of the members is hidden in order to give the illusion of equality, and hides the ugly realities of a system that grades people's “reputation”.

So, how about it? Why should I trust you if you do not trust me? If you want to judge and rank people, at least be honest and transparent about it and have a “reputation” meter in their profile that says that this member is this rank and is 27.5 % trustworthy, instead of this “we're all equal, but some are more equal than others” facade?

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

In the state of openness to which we must attune, our task is to say: “yes.”

If tony snow were standing in front of me right now, I’d give him a hug and kiss and ask how he’s doing.

Press secretaries are beautiful humans, although perhaps not “gorgeous bastards.” That’s a whole different level… wakka wakka…

Openness begets openness, a closed nature seeks to close other natures as well.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Alan, I have no problem with openness, I'm open. But you know what, I do not comply to “must”. No way. I do not have to say yes to everything, and I don't have a task. You clearly have no idea where I'm coming from or what I'm talking about, and that's cool. Call it how you see it…

Tony Snow is paid to lie to the public about the many crimes that the Bush administration has committed against America and humanity as a whole. If you think lying about genocide and fascism is wonderful, then maybe you should go hug and kiss Tony Snow and ask him for a job as an intern. I'm sure they're looking for go-getters like you who have no qualms about putting a happy face on genocidal wars, social engineering, and imperialism.

Go get 'em tiger!


P.S. Siona, I'm not comparing you to Tony Snow, I'm suggesting that I feel that you did not give me clear answers.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Lucid!

My use of language is a particular thing I find I need to explain to people: I’m a writer, I’ve redefined the english language to myself, and use it only in context. Therefore, the definition of must I would mean wouldn’t be the one necessarily in the dictionary, but the one that fits the context. If it was: We must say yes, what that suggests is

In this human’s perspective, saying yes is a decision of such apperant wisdom that it can be safely championed, such that if a principle can describe the motion of the universe without exception, it may be called law.

I don’t mean we don’t disagree, I simply mean we say yes to eachother, and then disagree. There’s a difference between a disagreement that starts with yes and one that starts with no, I’m heavily suggesting.

About tony snow: the man’s retired, first off. I’d hug him, kiss him, and then forgive him, because his role as secretary is in the past.

I forget whoever’s around now, but if I were to meet him, I’d hug him and kiss him, and then ask if I could meet bush, perhaps. If I could meet bush, I’d hug him, kiss him, and forgive him, and then, only then, I’d open up a long discussion about what things we as people can all do better to make earth somewhere that’s nice to live. as I’d do with you, if I disagreed with you.

Hugs and kisses, love!

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Wow, I see they put MDMA in the Kool-Aid…

Welcome to Costco, I love you…

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

You love me, my friend, and yet you insult me? you suggest I am “in a cult?” On extasy, MDMA, which I literally had to look up?

You make jokes that devalue my opinion?

You love me: did you consider how it feels when people are insulted?

I thought the whole argument against the seed system is it would breed things such as “fuck you’s.”

Do you consider saying they put mdma in my coolaid a “fuck you?”

Are you, my love, becoming the thing you sought to fight against?

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Alan, did you consider the possibility that telling people that they must say yes without question might be insulting to them? But you know what, it's not a big deal. It takes more than statements and jokes about opinion to insult me.

And yes Alan, I love you enough to tell you honestly what I think, without honeying my words.

If you feel that my small comment devalues your opinion, then it seems like you don't think much about the value of your opinion. If you feel insulted, then I'm sorry you feel that way. You were the one that started this by telling me what I must do and think, and then when I responded to you outside of your desired framework, you felt insulted. If you feel that my comment qualifies as a “fuck you”, then I really don't know what to say to you man.

The argument against the seed system is that it allows people to say “fuck you” anonymously and make people “lose their voice” because of it. Systems don't breed “fuck you's”, people breed them. The point is that I respect people's right to tell me to go fuck myself. They have the right to their opinion, but they should have the common decency to say it to my face.

Like I said, you and I see things a bit differently, so we can agree to disagree. Or not. Either way is ok with me. Peace : )

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Lucid!

About saying yes: I believe you misunderstood my meaning. And I do parrot the words of Joseph Campbell, who parroted the words of a master whom he went to see one day, when Joseph Campbell decided to ask how the universe could be perfect with all the dissention and war and suffering, etc.

The master, according to campbell, said:

“for you and I, the task is to say yes.”

I don’t expect you to honey your words, and I submit to you there’s a difference between being insulted and feeling insulted. I could break down in semantics exactly what I mean, but that would take too long, and I trust your ability to understand what I mean.

I feel no insult, and my words need no value added from you, and nor can you take value from them. But you can intend to do so, and so I ask you, clearly, since you responded here this way: what exactly was your intent when you told me I’d drunken cool-aid with extacy? I ask because I believe that kind of discorse to be counterproductive to solving problems. I believe it comes from a place of non-acceptance, as when you are suggesting I am or sound as if I am on ex, a drug famous for making people ramble and be overly loving, you are suggesting that my opinions are not grounded. I believe what we are essentially discussing here when it comes to the root of the issue is acceptance: in other words, saying yes. How do we say yes to zaadz guiding itself, without moderators?

But I strongly disagree, although I say yes to fuck yous in that I do not deny their existance, or the need of those saying fuck you in any form to say fuck you, I do feel that saying fuck you is largely counterproductive to any positive thought, action, or feeling, and as such I would prefer if people didn’t do so at all. I thought Zaadz was about something besides “fuck you,” fundamentally.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Alan, seriously… I wasn't solving a problem, I was making a joke. There are people with a different sense of humor than your own. Can you take a joke?

My joke was intended to point out my belief that people who think that they should say yes to everything are comical and/or tragic(there's a thin line). It's one thing when we talk about philosophical theory on accepting the eternal now at every moment. It's quite another thing when applied practically to everyday life, as it shows a one-sidedness that is actually quite comical/tragic. I'll give you a few examples:

Lucid: Hey Alan, I'm gonna eat a 10 strip of acid and parachute into the middle of the Amazon rainforest equipped with a Rambo knife, a compass, and no rations. Do you wanna come?

Alan: Yes.

Lucid: Mmmkay then, can you please give me all your money, and sign your house and car over to me?

Alan: Yes.

Lucid: Great. Now, run into Starbucks butt-naked and yell: ” This is a stick up!!! ”

Alan: Yes.

You see, it's kinda silly. It's like someone who only turns their head to the left, only pees on the right side of the toilet bowl, only uses consonants, only dates women who wear purple hats, etc. etc. But that's just my opinion, and in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter what I think. My joke was not intended as an insult, but if you want to take it as one, then so be it. Mmmkay? Peace : )

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

“My joke was intended to point out my belief that people who think that they should say yes to everything are comical and/or tragic(there’s a thin line)”

I can well take a joke: but in my definition of joke, a joke that points out that I am “comic or tragic” is not a joke. I consider that, in general, a judgement, calling somebody comic or tragic: if one says someone is tragic, they are describing the being and not the behavior. If you were to say my behavior was tragic, this would be different, as would your tone have been, etc.

I’m sorry you think I’m comic or tragic! I suggest you STILL don’t understand what I’m saying about saying yes. Although I agree with everything you said, those decisions would not be wise. Perhaps what I’m saying is, wisdom is a matter of what we should say yes to, as apposed to going around saying no.

In your example, I’d say yes to the path of my life, which as no room for dropping acid and parachuting into the rainforest with you. It’s not that I think would I chose to do any such actions, they would be disasterous: I believe the difference between success and failure exists only in me.

If you asked me to say yes to sticking up starbucks, naked or no, I’d say yes to respecting free will, and would end up doing something different than you suggest.

But I think we’re beginning to get far too far off topic. if you like, we can discuss this in email or something.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

“My joke was intended to point out my belief that people who think that they should say yes to everything are comical and/or tragic(there’s a thin line)”

I can well take a joke: but in my definition of joke, a joke that points out that I am “comic or tragic” is not a joke. I consider that, in general, a judgement, calling somebody comic or tragic: if one says someone is tragic, they are describing the being and not the behavior. If you were to say my behavior was tragic, this would be different, as would your tone have been, etc.

I’m sorry you think I’m comic or tragic! I suggest you STILL don’t understand what I’m saying about saying yes. Although I agree with everything you said, those decisions would not be wise. Perhaps what I’m saying is, wisdom is a matter of what we should say yes to, as apposed to going around saying no.

In your example, I’d say yes to the path of my life, which as no room for dropping acid and parachuting into the rainforest with you. It’s not that I think would I chose to do any such actions, they would be disasterous: I believe the difference between success and failure exists only in me.

If you asked me to say yes to sticking up starbucks, naked or no, I’d say yes to respecting free will, and would end up doing something different than you suggest.

But I think we’re beginning to get far too far off topic. if you like, we can discuss this in email or something.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Alan, it's my belief that this drama called life is a comedy/tragedy, and that we're all actors on the grand stage.

I understand what you mean by “saying yes”, but my view is that this “yes” is a middleman that I simply cut out of the picture. I accept everything in the eternal now unconditionally because I am the eternal now, and all of my thoughts and actions flow from this source of all that is. I don't say yes to free will; I am free will. In my view, it's not a yes or no matter.

Anyways, I hope that this clarifies my intentions. I know, I can be kind of a dick sometimes. So, sorry if you thought I meant to insult you, I meant no offense. Feel free to message me if you wish to discuss this further or have any questions. Be well : )

Peace

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Lucid.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. I know I brought up the means by which this community was regulated before, and you accused me of setting up a straw man argument.

I think, though, that it bears repeating.

If we get rid of the seed system and go back to the former set-up, we'll have–as before–a small group of team members anonymously deciding who gets to stay and who doesn't; who gets to speak, and who doesn't; what gets highlighted, and what doesn't; what gets hidden, and what doesn't. I could be off in this, but I think that if we were interested in “drowning out the people who bring up important issues” we would have just left things as they were and gone ahead as we did before–quietly booting the 'abusers' as we defined them.

And Lucid… I'll be frank. it's hard to hear these charges of “making more money” and catering to the masses. You might spend some time on this site, sure, and contribute a great deal of you own time and energy to it, but frankly, this community is my life. I work here for a reason. I work here for the same reason I joined the site to begin with it–because I love the values of this place, because I love the vibrancy, because I love the quality of the discussion, because I love the people who come to it. And I've spent a long time working hard (along with an incredible group of people who code and moderate and who work absurd hours)  to maintain the integrity of this place. To have someone say I'd sacrifice something I believe that deeply in so that “I can make more money” makes me wonder, seriously, about what it is you're doing here.

It's true that we're a business. If we don't make money, well, our other option is closing the whole site down. I, personally, don't want this to happen, and I can tell you that balancing the needs of the community with the needs of the business is not an easy challenge. It's also one that I don't ever see being resolved; it's an ongoing, never-ending process, and I'm so, so deeply appreciative of those (from those who come to the site only occasionally to the people I work with who code the place) who understand that.

Also, rational and critical thinkers SHOULD be paid attention to, as should controversial issues. Again, I think this current community understands that! I think this current community, the one that we've cultivated by barring those who we feel don't “get it” values this. It's why we were hoping to weight more the feedback from those on the site now, so that as we continue to grow, it's those of you who already understand and embody the values of the community who'll get to maintain them.

I don't know whether I'm not explaning this coherently, or whether it's preferable for us to return to our completely behind-the-scenes process, or whether you have some other solution.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Siona, thank you for responding.

I'm just calling it how I see it. No more, no less. I don't see why we can't go back to the drawing board and create a system that does not rank people and give the higher ranking people preferential treatment. You guys can have an impartial system and make money, you don't need something like the seed system to make this happen. Zaadz can grow to become something wonderful that really does change the world, but it has to be mindful that the pursuit of profits is a snowball that can turn into an avalanche and destroy whatever the original good intentions were.

It's nothing personal against you. I love you and the rest of the team for creating the medium which makes this amazing community of wonderful people able to interact with each other in deep and meaningful ways. You have my utmost respect for your heroic efforts. I am here because I love this community and I love being here, and this is precisely the reason that these recent developments have given me cause for serious concern. I'm not here to ruin the party, I'm here to enjoy responsibly without being graded and ranked in a popularity contest.

As for solutions, I will repeat what I suggested before:

….we all agreed to the “Terms and Conditions” when we became members of this community. I don't see why we don't simply scrap the “Trust” System and go back to the previous system with minor adjustments. Namely, a non-anonymous flagging system in which the flaggers must identify themselves and give a proper explanation of why they flagged this member. Once the member in question is flagged a certain amount of times, the administrators should be alerted. If the administrators find that the “Terms and Conditions” have been violated, then the member in question should be put up for review in order to determine whether to give a warning to the member in question, or to boot them, depending on the severity of the infraction. This should be done in cooperation with an elected group of moderators who have been voted into these positions by the entire Zaadz community for the purpose of dealing with cases in which members have violated the “Terms and Conditions”. The accused member should also have a voice in defending themselves.

However, if the member in question has not violated the “Terms and Conditions”, then they are not put up for review and they are allowed to go about their business. Certain members will inevitably flag other members for petty and immature reasons, and I believe that these people should be held accountable. If a member flags enough members who have not violated the 'Terms and Conditions”, then these accusers should be put up for review for continued slander and baseless accusations. Flagging is a serious thing, and people should not just be able to flag at will without facing the consequences. The great thing about freedom of choice is that if someone doesn't like what someone else is saying, they can simply change the channel. If you don't like Bill O' Reilly, then don't listen to him. It's that simple!

Thank you for listening. Peace : )

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

There's a big grin on my face. I think we're getting somewhere. :)

Well, right now, we're left with a kudos / gratitude button, and the flagging system, which is pretty much as you described it–and which, for the most part, I whole-heartedly agree with.

I'd like to say a few words about the anonymous thing, though, in part because it protects those who are worried (perhaps rightly!) of retaliation; I've had members (frequently women) write to me privately about being harrassed by another member on the site. They've wanted me not to let the abuser know who it was who complained, because they've been worried about what might happen if he found out. For that reason, I think it's prudent to have some level of safety for reporters. (I'm open to other options, but again, this is just from experience).

Moving on, though. Right now, if you press the 'Flag for review' button, you get a little pop-up asking for confirmation and letting you know (very briefly!) what happens as a result. I'd propose replacing that pop-up with something like this:

You're about to flag this entry for review, spending one of your seeds in the process. By flagging this entry, you believe that it's in violation of our terms; that is, it doesn't reflect ”reverence, compassion, respect for yourself, your fellow members, and the law, and a desire to grow and to give to the world.”

Please note that this button is not to be used to express disagreement, differences of opinion, dislike, or the belief that the post is of poor quality. (And if you've pressed it in anger, please take a minute to reflect on what the entry has brought up in you before continuing.) If you're still convinced that you're justified in your observation of conduct (not content!) that's disrespectful or abusive, go ahead and flag the post. Be aware, though, that we take 'abuse' of this button pretty seriously. :)

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hey Siona (and others)-
I don't know of any online community bigger than, like, six high school kids and their 3 online friends, that doesn't have some kind of internal regulating system, and this one seems extremely kind and sensitive. I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been put out there earlier, but on the other hand, I kind of do (now) understand the touchiness of the subject.
Thank you, all, for the hard work and kind heartedness that's gone into this.
I am so impressed, and feel even more affection, if that's possible, for this community.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Siona, it's good to hear from you again.

I think the flag button aspect is good. If people violate the “Terms of Agreement”, then you reserve the right to review their case and act accordingly. That makes sense. I understand that there are special cases in which people feel the need for privacy, but I think that the negatives outweigh the positives in an anonymous system. People should be encouraged to use common sense, and not give out their email addresses or other information to just anybody. If the moderators determine that some pervert or lunatic is harassing women/men here at Zaadz, then they should boot him/her. If they create another account and keep harassing, then you should block their IP. Problem solved. If it's a real crazy, they will keep finding ways to harass, and I don't believe that the rest of us should be punished for that by not being allowed to know who is accusing us. It's just not right. If someone accuses me of committing a crime against them, then I should have the right to know my accuser if I have to stand trial. It's only right.

However, I am totally against the “reputation” system, and having some members have more of a say in their input. I don't believe that encouraging favoritism is a good thing. People should use their own judgment to determine how much weight they give to the word of another. It should not incorporated into the system. If anything, the system needs to be impartial because people are not. The impartiality is a necessary counterbalance. That is the reason we have systems of moderating people in the first place. If people were totally impartial and just, then we would not need a justice system, or police, or governments, or any system of control for that matter.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks : ) Peace

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

We might work with different systems of ethics, then; I prefer an ethic of care to an ethic of justice. But let me come back to this, okay? I think you make (as always) some wonderful points.

(And the link above, if you don't happen to click, says only:

“As opposed to the above theories that focused on the individual's rights, an ethic of care emphasizes a person as a part of an interdependent relationship that affects how decisions are made. In this theory the specific situation and context in which the person is embedded becomes a part of the decision-making process. It is important that we always keep in mind that our decisions may affect more than just one person. Whole families, other patients, and even the health care practitioners may be affected. Instead of considering the consequences or our duties, an ethic of care considers the situation that may involve a vulnerable, dependent, and weak person who needs the support of the community.”)

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hi Siona, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I prefer an ethic of justice, as Zaadz is not my primary care physician. I am an individual member of Zaadz, and not a patient of Zaadz. That is the significant difference.

Anyways, I look forward to you coming back to this.

Peace : )

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hello, dear beleaguered zaadz team,

does a polling feature exist that can be enabled quickly?

If not, how difficult is it to create polls?

To find out if it really is just a vocal minority clamoring to get rid of the Trust System, simply stick a poll up on top of every profile page. Give every member a one-time vote, asking straightforward questions.

1) Do you want the new Trust System - yes or no.

2) If yes, do you want to enable the anonymous negative feedback feature?

Refine the poll by asking further questions to empower the community even more. But start by addressing the two major points of contention.

How about it?

Love,

m

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Mascha, great idea.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

 The silent Majority?

 

Eventhough most people are conformists, therefore this would likely be approved, and you want a poll? This will only add undue complexity, now you know that Mascha, don't you?

Anyway, Mascha they wont do that, and I will tell you why.

They likely stopped it because too many people were leaving, therefore why rock the boat.

A bird in hand is better than a hidden deck.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

We could create a poll. What I find so funny about this, though, is how so many of those who oppose the system oppose it because of their concerns about the majority drowning out the less popular opinions. And why I love about this whole debate, and this whole discussion, is how deliciously fraught with irony and paradox it is… that by bringing up the issue of trust, we've all of a sudden created awareness of mistrust. It's fabulous.

(And as an aside, I don't think that many people have left as a result of this system; I haven't checked to see how many have jumped ship because they, um, don't trust our motives, but it's not as though thousands, or even hundreds, are fleeing. And even if we do end up losing a few, I'm still hopeful that everyone who does remain to see whether this experiment strengthens and evolves the community will find an even more brilliant Zaadz will result. And yes, anyone and everyone who'd leave because of this disruption will always be welcomed back if they change their minds. Or hearts. :)

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Siona: We could create a poll.

But the chances that you will are… ….nil? Of course, if you guys were primarily concerned with what the community actually thinks and independently requires, you would have polled at the outset of this Trust campaign. I understand.

m

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

 Hi Siona,


 You wrote:

We could create a poll. What I find so funny about this, though, is how so many of those who oppose the system oppose it because of their concerns about the majority drowning out the less popular opinions. And why I love about this whole debate, and this whole discussion, is how deliciously fraught with irony and paradox it is… that by bringing up the issue of trust, we've all of a sudden created awareness of mistrust. It's fabulous

My dear Siona, it is not for that reason, I don't think, people objected to this.

I think the major two reasons are these:

Number one: The system inherently hinders free speech by making people aware of a reward and punishment system that would obviously affect  their expressions on zaadz. It would make people feel too stifled in expressing their TRUE feelings.

Number two: I think people got a feeling that this type of stuff was somewhat below zaadz philosophy, in other words, many thought zaadz was a hip, cool joint, the best of the new age, and wouldn't do things like this that seems to foster people hurting each other. That doesn't seem to be in the zaadz spirit.

Though I personally would have learned to live with this.

I am on zaadz to spread  understanding of my spiritual cosmology,  that I believe has relavance to our destiny, ( not as a guru, or with obssession)and I will try to do that without leaving much of a trace of myself. As I say on my site: IGNORE MY APPEARANCE AND TAKE WHAT IS IN MY HAND. I wouldn't have been deterred by this, one way or the other.

Love

Zak

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

I'm delighted at the views expressed in this thread.If I may add my thoughts to a few points raised:
————————–
given:PS: What does it say about zaadz when a “trust” system generates so much mistrust? I can't help but notice the terrible irony in this.

The shadow that Siona has talked about is exactly this: the moment we say trust, we are also implying distrust. When we say that “some” Zaadsters are to be moderated by others, we are saying that some are not to be trusted, and others are.

It's not really about Zaadz alone, but life in general. Unless, as has been pointed out, we can take an elevated perspective [as in Godel's theorem, e.g., that we cannot know a system unless we see it from outside the system!]

My point here is that the mechanics of this is still evolving.  We need to focus on tagging work that seems to be against the Terms & conditions, the main standard we have right now; not tagging the Zaadster, but the work. I think this is already being done pretty well; and I'm sure some in the community will be willing to help with this, as required.
———————————–

Alan: When they saw the seed system, some people among us immediately saw it as an oppertunity for the dark side of human nature to ruin zaadz.

As I hope we can see- most Zaadsters who are posting more than once, whether here or in  various discussions; are showing some movement in thoughts and views. That is really the way that change takes place: through interaction, discussion, dissension. None of this is negative - it is all positive if we look at it in duality mode. Out of discussion, the hidden areas of our thoughts are coming to light--the shadows too are not negative as in harmful/bad–but  comprise what is unknown.

—————————–

Siona:Maybe we can think of some way that would 'enlighten' this system more? Some means to encourage awareness of what's selected as valuable–or flagged as harmful?

Sandra:Yes I believe there are some people who end up on zaadz who have no interest in any form of 'world change' other than promoting themselves and/or being rude to others. How we 'moderate' these people is an issue, but as far as I can see is one that has been dealt with effectively in the past ( a note to the team etc). 

I think one of the main ways to “punish” spamming, is the Spam button and beyond that, I doubt a spammer will get much attention.  Both are punishment enough. And if required, the profile can be removed, after communicating with the member. In this case, too, there can be community volunteers to do this work. I suppose it is still the Zaadz team that will do actual removals and so on if required.
————————–
Lucid:This should be done in cooperation with an elected group of moderators who have been voted into these positions by the entire Zaadz community for the purpose of dealing with cases in which members have violated the “Terms and Conditions”. The accused member should also have a voice in defending themselves.

Personally, I think it is better to have people volunteer to be moderators; after posting some time-based and work-based guidelines . If too many have volunteered [which will be wonderful, really!], the work could be divided among them; or perhaps at that time we could have an election as Lucid suggests? They need to represent the diversity that is Zaadz. They could work in a closed-pod [i.e. not public] to decide on certain actions.  The Zaadz team can oversee the moderators. I belong to a worldwide group of volunteers, all online, very well organized and managed, and even if the work done is different from here; feel some of those principles can work here too.

Though there should be privacy for the people involved; there need not be anonymity.
———————–
Let us remember that this is a global place; words and connotations are different; and that so far, one aspect we haven't touched upon, is —how are we keeping this place safe for kids? I see in the Lounge, that we have members who are less than 18 yrs. old. Is there a way of verifying that? Of ensuring they are not targeted?

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

If I'm a spammer or whatever, and set up 20 different profiles will I be able to give myself 'x' number of seeds and promote myself without any other type of monitoring?

The spammers are clever to say the least, and some of them go to many lengths to achieve their aims so I'm wondering if this is a relevant question.

To answer it myself:

I'd say that somehow the community would be aware of this sort of intrusion and someone would speak to the Team about it if it wasn't discovered along the way. I know I'd certainly speak up.

 A while ago I had a hoax type of email and before I could even report it to the Team I received an email from them saying it was a hoax and that particular person was no longer with us. I'm assuming the Team were alerted by someone from within the community and even if they weren't the offender was removed.

Jim x

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

If I'm a spammer or whatever, and set up 20 different profiles will I be able to give myself 'x' number of seeds and promote myself without any other type of monitoring?

The spammers are clever to say the least, and some of them go to many lengths to achieve their aims so I'm wondering if this is a relevant question.

To answer it myself:

I'd say that somehow the community would be aware of this sort of intrusion and someone would speak to the Team about it if it wasn't discovered along the way. I know I'd certainly speak up.

 A while ago I had a hoax type of email and before I could even report it to the Team I received an email from them saying it was a hoax and that particular person was no longer with us. I'm assuming the Team were alerted by someone from within the community and even if they weren't the offender was removed.

Jim x

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

sorry but there goes that pesky double post bug again … not that it drives me crazy or anything  but I spend a little bit of time  deleting these on Diving Deeper where I moderate :–)

Jim x

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Hey Jim,

Maybe the double post will give you double seeds!! 

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Dear Ones,

Trust and shadow:  as far as my behavior is concerned, I don't have a clue about that part of my expression that is shadowed.  Other people can see it, I accept  that it's in there and can accept that I am clueless or blind in some ways, but I can't “trust” myself around it as I just don't see it when it appears.  I do trust myself enough to know that, re shadow, you should not trust that I will not occasionally, or persistently in some cases, trespass your boundaries without being conscious of it.  As has been said, “Honest folks, I'm a liar.”

Hints of my shadow appear when I am annoyed or triggered in life.  Whatever pisses me off, or scares me or causes shame to rise from within is not reason for me to take you on; it is however (I have learned this the hard way) reason for me to take me on.  Self-inquiry, honesty, curiosity and surrender, to name a few, are the tools of Self-discovery, but the currency, the juice, and the motivation arise from the acceptance of shadow within and then mustering (through prayer if necessary) the willingess to encourage the grace of life to change me as it will rather than me, deciding, shadow and all, to force or wheedle change in areas I have had no luck with all my life.

If, in the conventional sense, your behavior triggers me, and I suffer any attention on your behavior, then that is attention lost to the quest for Self-discovery and the flowering of self-trust.  The more we trust ourselves around others, the less we are inclined to engage in the murk of “trusting” (really magically hoping with fingers crossed) that the other will not betray this unspoken, unqualified, unenforceable so-called trust.  A person who is truly trustworthy appears that way to nearly everyone as their state is evidently founded on self-awareness and not particularly their ability to keep a secret ie. not telling you when you are full of shit.  That, imo, is loyalty - a suspect attribute if ever there was one.

Persistent self-inquiry will steadily uncloak shadow.  As shadow “appears” or, if open, is pointed out by someone else's insights or behavior, I can choose to take responsibility for it, looking within to that part of me that is yearning for me to heal this aspect of myself.  Rythmically shifting focus between what it is I seek within and what it is that obstructs this higher state essentially massages the interferent density of the shadow's wound causing long-repressed emotions as well as the thought patterns and reactionary behaviors to rise in a more-or-less “sulphurous” plume.  Simply experiencing this rise even frightened or otherwise emotionalized, without attaching or identifying with it, while also holding attention on the joy shining faintly through it, has resulted for me in the rise of self-trust.  This is the most effective form of trust for me. 

I think I will shift my attention now over to Meenakshi's thread on Zaadzettiquette (sic).

Yer pal,
Michael

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Those are all very important suggestions, Michael, Meenakshi, Sandra and all and  my head is buzzing with what you say and images of a higher complexity Zaadz.

But I think we are a step to far: we don't have a signal that we can co-create and to which extent.

That is why , I think that now the Zaadz Team and its employer, Gaiam, need to give us a signal to which extent we can co-create, and clear hierachical boundaries for that co-creation to happen.

This is a tremendous work that I'm asking for, but I think we won't be able to go further without that, nor will we be able to make the economy of that clarification.

P.S. The trust system is certainly important, but let's not fall in one of the main group resistance” which is to overly focus on “a bad guy” (the spammer, the badly behaving Zaadzster). This would prevent the working group from actually working! See Bion, Foulkes and the like.
The Zaadz  Team has decided to “put the moderating power in our hands”, so a co-creative step has been taken by them which has led to the actual situation - I don't think they did forsee that. Let's go further now.


With love,

Patrick

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Briefly - ( I promised myself some creative writing this morning before I engaged on zaadz) -

Siona wrote to Lucid regarding the Trust System:

It was intended so that those who were blessed with more gratitude, those who were respected and cherished in the community for their generosity and concern and respect for the values we grew this site around, would be granted a bit of a metaphorical megaphone so their input would be weighted more and thus would even the playing field a bit

In my head, if you can’t measure trust, you also can’t measure the negation of it. As in: zero is not a number: how can negative zero be a number?

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Sandra.

Thank you, as always, for your words. (One of the things I love about your posts is how they remind me of my own tendency to want to say just a sentence or two… and then, twelve paragraphs later, I'm left wondering whether anyone will possibly get through the whole essay :).

I think the Trust / Reputation name we considered was a mistake, both for the reasons you wrote, and because that language has been twisted enough by Orwellian-like storys and governments. I'd love to change the name to the less loaded, less portentious 'seed system,' though I don't want to be seen as 'changing history.' Another dilemma!

And I know we corresponded in private a bit about an Elder's tribunal. I'd love to think that such a thing would arise organically, from the grassroots, instead of something implemented by the company, in part because such an independent, self-decided group could serve as an ombudsman for us both. Again, I'd love to point people who are having disputes toward a circle or wisdom council that could help mediate before the team steps in, so if you do arrange such a pod or circle, please let us know so we can help alert the rest of the community to its existence.

I think–or I'd love!–for us to give the seed system a fair shake. (Surprised? ;) If anyone (anyone!) feels that it's being abused, or that they're being treated unfairly as a result, or that, after a few weeks, it's really and truly dampened the experience of the site, we'll revisit the issue and change things. Speaking personally, though, I love what's arisen so far–I love how so many have taken this issue so seriously, and come out to talk so clearly and sweetly about it, and I love the engagement and interaction that's occurred. This might have happened in spite of the system instead of because of it, but regardless, I feel I've learned a tremendous amount over the past week, and for that (and for you) I'm deeply, deeply grateful.

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

hello Sonia,

So if I get it right:

1) the seed thing is going to go on for a little while at least.

Yous say “If anyone (anyone!) feels that it’s being abused, or that they’re being treated unfairly as a result, or that, after a few weeks, it’s really and truly dampened the experience of the site, we’ll revisit the issue and change things”.

So basically that means the Zaadz members are not going, for the moment, to be co-creating this auto-regulating thing?

2) For the elders group, you say: ” I’d love to think that such a thing would arise organically, from the grassroots, instead of something implemented by the company, in part because such an independent, self-decided group could serve as an ombudsman for us both”

If I get it right: the Zaadz members can create a pod for handling conflicts, but it is not going to be in partnership with Gaiam (or the Team?).

I’m obsessed with clarity…and I’d like someone of the Team to tell me if I got it right, so I can position myself clearly.

Thank you in adavance,

Patrick

Re: Moderating the community:questions and suggestions

Patrick:

What do you mean by co-creating? You're certainly a huge part of it–as an existing Zaadzster, you get to decide how you're going to use the system–so in that way, yes… you're co-creating the system in the same way you've co-created the site; the Team provides the structure and the tools, and you use them as you see fit. And, as is noted in the description of the seed system, its success or failure depends entirely on how it's used.

(An aside: we've already made changes based on the feedback, so there's been some of that input, too. But when it comes to designing the process and algorithms and the code, I think I want to counter with the too-many-cooks angle, and the general note that there are roles for the members and roles for the team, and the construct of these systems–based in part on our jobs and in part on the perspective we have on what it's like behind the scenes and what it takes to maintain the integrity of space–is up to us.  We do value and do appreciate and, frankly, depend on feedback, and we've been rolling out new features as they've been asked for, but in general, the role of the community is to use and play and respond and recommend–and not to design and implement.)

I've chatted with Sandra about the Elder's council, but yes, I think you've got it. We'll be more than happy to both support and promote a pod or group designed for conflict resolution or any other 'site issues,' but creating and organizing and moderating it (as well as getting the okay from those who you feel would be best served by it!) is up to whomever wishes to take on that role. That said, again, I would dearly love to help it get going, and wouldn't mind using such a council myself.

I hope that helps! I'd also like to say that while I appreciate your desire for clarity (who doesn't?), part of what I love so much about Zaadz is that we don't tend to impose hard and fast rules, and we are open to dialogue and change, and that we prefer guidelines and heuristics to unbreakable laws and final answers. So take the above with a nice grain of salt.

Becaues what can I say? Community is a process. Business is a process. I don't expect there'll be a final solution to any of this (and frankly, If we ever start talking about final solutions, maybe then you can start with the Nazi accusations :), and so while I'm offering as clear an answer as I can from where I sit now, well, change, as they say, is inevitable.

And as always, you're very, very welcome…