Seeds and Gardens

(Greetings… I have been a spectator for a while, and I think I now may contribute a bit. This issue is incredibly interesting and in a sense unique, worthy of a deep sociological investigation by itself. There are many scholars out there trying to understand social interaction online, and the “seeds”, and Zaadz/Gaia idea altogether, may get quite a publicity if it comes to the attention of such scholars. Do you realize that you are attempting to sophisticatedly overturn one of the fundaments of online communication? Anonymity was the first to go, since the introduction of profiles and the like, but “social status”? Many forums have “points” system counting posts, fewer have ranks given by admins or based on activity, but “seeds” goes even further: a democratically decided “suit” that one gets to wear online. The “points” system is flawed, and forums where such system determines admin consideration become flood/flame bases, dominated by a few loud voices. This is different. But you know all this, so let me get to the point.)

 Some of the things I wanted to point out:

First, you haven’t presented “seeds” properly. A rough chat-like “cool” description, as far as I can see, needs to be changed first. It’s confusing and misleading. Imagine giving a presentation of a new product at a big auction to a crowd of people – would your speech be just as unsure? You need to shout out how determined you are that it will work, how ready you are to work with us to improve it in any way, how eager you are to make Zaadz the best thing ever! But what do we get when we click on “what’s this”? A very rough description with nothing certain but lots of “wow-s”. We are not kids. Make a clear description of how it works and what it’s meant to do, so we DON’T have to search trough admins’ blogs and comments and read thousands of words just to get some things clear. Make a clear link to a page that explains exactly what is going on.

Second, “seeds” is a great idea that may inspire people in ways you may not right now imagine. From the very beginning it felt like Zaadz was made to have this “seeds” system. In a few years’ time, when things may get really messy in the world, and environment will escalate in its importance, it is the “seeds” that many may turn to for things like hope, advice, inspiration. Do have this in mind. As to the idea that Michael had about “seeds to stock” or alternatively “seeds to donation”, it is worth serious consideration. A counter of how much “seeds” are used on the whole of Zaadz, for all to see on the first page, and charitable “spending” of those seeds, “seeds sown by good hearts, grown into good deeds” – isn’t this a wonderful opportunity? And Zaadz members get the final decision on where the help really goes (poll or whatever means). Only the “positive” seeds would count, thus discouraging the unnecessary “flagging”.

Third. Don’t say things like “reputation” and “trust”, as you have seen, they put people off, different people for different reasons. Use imagery, very appropriate in this case. When seeds are spent, they are planted, for beautiful flowers and useful trees to grow, for beautiful ideas and useful deeds! And zaadsters don’t get “reputation” or “trust”, they get GARDENS out of the seeds! This is the imagery you need, gardens! Make the little circle in the profile fill with greenness, make it into a hyperlink to a page where you see minimum statistics, but pictures! The more planted seeds the zaadster has, the bigger and more beautiful the garden! A garden isn’t about trust, or reputation, or rank. It’s much less likely to put people off that they have a “little garden”, unlike that girl who has a whole “national park”. They are BOTH beautiful and useful. I return to my first point above here: present the whole idea anew, again. Don’t hurry, think this through. Make Zaadz feel like home, not a capitalist marketplace for popularity.

Forth. And I hope zaadsters will see the importance of this – Zaadz needs to grow economically, and however weird this sounds, this should be in our interest. Don’t we realise that MONEY is one of the main problems and power imbalances today? How much good can be done in this world if the good people had the money to act? Charities are very limited in their monetary power, but consumers’ choice is king. Zaadz and the commercial team behind Gaiam is bringing to us the market for environmental stuff, healthy stuff, the market that especially nowadays desperately needs to grow! If we want to change the world, we must force the commercial powers of this world to change, because they are mostly responsible for the mess this world is facing! If any huge corporation producing anything from food, toys, to fuel and packaging sees, through us on zaadz and our support for better product, that better product has buyers, they will switch! They will pollute less, kill fewer animals, employ more creative staff… They will change, and this will change the world! This is what Zaadz is about, isn’t it? So let’s do this, together. It already started working. This is what conscious capitalism is about. And “seeds” can really help here.

Fifth. Things can get hot here on Zaadz. There was a lot of talk about “shadows”, but what about intentional damage? Yes some of us can occasionally get upset and shout, and that is fine, easily resolved through dialogue, proven numerous times here already. But what about intentional evil? Did Zaadz and zaadsters really think they can just decide to change the world and have a go-ahead with it without any problems? As Zaadz grows it will have exploiters as well as enemies, and those are difficult to trace. The more people come here the more difficult it will be for mods and admins. There must be some flagging system. May I suggest it be renamed “I Am Concerned…”? Just that, no specific implication of negativity, just concern. Where seeds can mean “I love this Garden, may it grow more!”, a concern would mean “I think I saw weeds in this garden…”, or something like that. Let’s discuss this further together…

Sixth. …But not vote. There is a silent majority and mostly unquestionable respect and support for the admins. Discussions are fruitful, but votes are a weak scrutiny tool in this case. In politics a democracy dilemma exists: should a vote of a drunkard down the road count as much as a professor’s vote? With “seeds” this is easily solved: those more “respected” (sic) have a bit more say. But for goodness sake avoid such language! It is very logical that one with bigger garden can collect more seeds from his/her plants and thus have a greater contribution to others’ gardens. How simple such imagery makes things appear, don’t you think?

Seventh. For some reason many seem to assume that, even with a “reputation” (sic) system in place, we will follow it blindly like sheep. On most forums the “points” one has is just a number next to a name, that’s all. Will zaadsters ignore a new member’s comment jut because of low “reputation”!? Or will administration just delete someone’s email if they see he/she is unpopular, without reading it and considering its contents? Of course not. And if we don’t use “reputation” but “gardens” or something like that, then it actually matters even less! Personally I would be extra inclined to support people with smaller gardens and would intentionally visit people with a lot of negative feedback, just to try to help in some way. And I feel like I am not alone on this one. Comments?

Eighth, finally, the counter for the total amount of seeds spent/planted should affect the maximum seeds bank of individual zaadsters to some extent. And we need to know exactly some of the details like what is our max limit of seeds, and how big our garden has grown, etc. Overall, personally I support the idea, but with a different presentation to the one currently in place. Good job guys.

Namaste.

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Zet– briefly for now - I wanted to say I really liked the energy of this… I'm almost on 'over' with the seed issue, but reading you I got a burst of energy to take another look.  Thanks.
Sandra

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Yeah, I agree totally with Sandra, and I love this idea in particular:

Zet White wrote: There must be some flagging system. May I suggest it be renamed “I Am Concerned…”? Just that, no specific implication of negativity, just concern. Where seeds can mean “I love this Garden, may it grow more!”, a concern would mean “I think I saw weeds in this garden…”, or something like that. Let’s discuss this further together…

The whole “bad seed” thing was doomed to failure purely for the name given to the things. Like, “Oh, that guy's a bad seed!” :)

And I love the garden metaphor in place of the light beacon. You get an icon that grows more and more flowery instead of a yellow/white circle that just sits there looking yellow, and you avoid having to call it something different like “reputation beacon”, which has absolutely no connection to the seeds metaphor anyway.

All in all, good stuff!

~G

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I'm glad you liked it. I hope the admins realise this, too. The “reputation” term in real life is open to interpretation: is it good or bad, famous or infamous? Take Paris Hilton, or any “celebrity” for that matter. Perhaps they would have a high “reputation”, but what does it really mean? The problem HERE is that a “Zaadz reputation” would IMPLY a specific attitude from administration. And that's unfair, and however clear the admins' consciousness is, we are not all that awakened here, so the good intentions are difficult to prove. Something as neutral as “garden” (and I spent many a day studying which name would suit linguistically) would not imply a particular treatment from administration, and if the language of imagery is upheld, it becomes extremely simple to intuitively understand how the system works. Larger/greener garden = more seeds. More seeds = greater contribution to everyone's gardens (potentially not just virtual, by the way)!

I just wanted to rephrase this idea for the admins again, because it seems that currently the seeds are “spent” and then somehow return to a “seed bank”. This confused me in several discussioins in blogs and pods. Logically and intuitively, seeds are “planted”, and this “lost”, not to return to any seed bank. A global counter would thus count how many seeds have actually been “planted” and how big our communal “rainforest” has thus grown. New seeds are “generated” by posts/comments(fruits salvaged by the gardener from the garden?) and visitings (naturally trees just produce some seeds by themselves if someone visits to collect them). Thus Zaadz with time will have its own “renewable rainforest”. I hope the admins are strongly considering the use of seeds to “rate/appreciate” the commercial goods/services here, too. Thus, I point this out again, “seeds” are adding some value to Zaadz and are economically useful, and the Zaadz community must be awarded for using seeds.

The “awards”, I suspect, will not become shares or money payments to “gardenest” Zaadsters… :)  I suggest everyone on Zaadz decides what the wood/fruit from our communal forest/garden becomes. Donations to particular charities, or some acts to do good as well as attract publicity and further interest in Zaadz. Gifts from sponsors to zaadz-born groups that need such gifts. Anything, by public application and voting (in those cases voting would work). It's a mutually beneficial affair: Zaadz grows, Zaadsters change the world.


Grey, a flower in the circle may be even better than just filling it with green or yellow, good idea! As for “concern”… I can see two buttons next to a post or comment or whatever, one being something  like “plant a seed” or “this deserves a seed”, and the other one being “this needs weeding?..” or “this seed looks wild”, or something like that. I have seen a lot of concern with definite negativity of flagging. Some people even said they would love to try to generate bad seeds. This is worth considering, since some may see a “weedy” garden as more “natural” than a “well-groomed” one. In any case, such language simply means “concern”, so mods with their garden tools and weedkillers head straight to posts/users with lots of “wild plants”… Just as the post/comment authors do, if they care for negative feedback (which a lot of us do!). What happens then is up to mods/owners, but the base function of “flagging” is still accomplished: moderator attention drawn.

Hereby a seed is spent but not added to communal “rainforest/garden”, thus discouraging such “weeding” unless necessary. Zaadsters, after all, would be interested in planting as much seeds as possible, especially if this leads to some tangible benefits for all.

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Zet,

Welcome to this discussion.  I feel support, instruction, communion, and great curiosity invested throughout the intention evident in this post.  I resonate strongly with your concerns and suggetions in particular the use of imagery to convey and develop the utility of the seeds program.

best.
Michael

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Thanks Michael!

Just a note, I haven't given much though to the “weeding” language, perhaps native english-speakers and gardeners could help here? I am afraid some may interpret “weeding” as something to do with a (in?)famous drug… :)

And another thing. I know organisations pay for advertising here. I am also aware that in case of a discussion about how big a communal “garden” must grow before it can (or must) be convertible into some tangible benefit for all, such discussion can become heated and controversial. May I therefore suggest careful consideration of this by the administration and their dialogue with the organisation about this as well? I suggest that extra benefit be not numerically linked to the number of seeds planted. It's useless to get Zaadsters to post thoughtlessly every day, just to plant more seeds and hope for a material perk. Instead, perhaps Zaadz can offer an extra free month of advertising to a sponsor that sees sufficient revenue earned from Zaadz to motivate it to “chip in” extra or offer a gift of some sort? Such “offers” would be presented to Zaadz as they come, and zaadsters will get to choose how to use them? Perhaps an extra “free” month of advertising in exchange for a “gift” is an option worth considering? There may be other options, this is just one idea that is both charitable and rewarding for zaadsters…

Another thing. Seeds can be planted anywhere, this zaadsters should be able to “give” seeds to themselves, but again, limited by time and number, as with giving to other users. It makes perfect sense and will make little difference. I suggest automatic “planting” of several seeds a week for every active member, this meaning “time present on Zaadz” will also be represented by the “garden/seeds” system. Also, may I suggest that, in addition to being able to spend more seeds, users with large “gardens” should be generating more seeds per post, week visited, comment etc.? Those with meaningful contribution may in turn have in mind meaningful “planting” strategy, too. This being perfectly in tune with what Siona said about “quiet but meaningful voices given a metaphorical megaphone”.

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Zet White, I am very impressed with your insightful, compassionate suggestions. 

Given this opening for linguistics, I'd like to suggest that the concept of sustainability might be a useful metaphor for the seed system - beyond the notion of fruits or wood being produced.  In this way, each zaadster could be seen as having their planting of seeds and removal of competing species (weeds) as enhancing the sustainability of Zaadz rather than yielding an additional reward.  This is my own preference, as I believe that greater focus on sustainability is important in our current culture, and this is often overlooked by the human tendency to focus on maximizing growth.

Along these lines, I think that Jake, the algorythm wizard  ( :  might need to separate the technical code patterns from the metaphorical description.  As you described, Zet White, the idea of a seed bank might be the algorithmic reality - but not necessarily the metaphor used by Zaadz to describe it.  I like the image of planting seeds as well as collecting them.  I also liked the image of seeds being there, falling from the tree or blown in the wind, etc., which means they are received/collected as we walk around the garden, noticing and interacting with our environment, tending our garden (cultivating positive attitudes and discouraging weeds) and being present.

You also brought up the idea of having enhanced “reputation” portrayed in a graphic rather than numerical manner.  Newsvine.com, for example, portrays initial members as a single line/stalk.  As they participate over time, leaves emerge onto the stalk.  The image of a plain seed would be wonderful for us, newcomers, with a couple of steps involving the growth of roots and a simple stem, followed by leaves and ultimately a flower?

Peace,

Earon

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Zaadz is the garden, our commons, and we are caretakers, partners in a grand experiment to create a sustainable community on the Internet to nurture compassion, flexible thinking and a good future for all beings.

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi Earon! What a wonderful paragraph you just wrote… I vote to put that on the Zaadz mission page and throw the “conscious capitalism”… in the footnote! Oh, oh… Now look what you've done! You inspired me to write even more! :-)

“Given this opening for linguistics, I'd like to suggest that the concept of sustainability might be a useful metaphor for the seed system”

Absolutely, this is the sort of thing I had in mind. I don't know what is the strategy of Gaiam, whether it's more New-Age spirituality or “green” stuff and environmentalism/sustainability, so it will need some clarification… But I feel like, with gaia.com on the rise, it will be all of those combined, and sustainability will be implied by the imagery… I think it's better to leave it up to users to inerpret the meaning behind “seeds”. Perhaps some will see it more as sowing spiritual seeds, hope in people's hearts, and, together, raising the spirit of humanity…

“Along these lines, I think that Jake, the algorythm wizard  ( :  might need to separate the technical code patterns from the metaphorical description.”

Jake has had a hard time with a heated response to the new system… *sigh* I hope this little rethinnking here will reignite his passion about this code (if it needs reignighting). The code needs not be linked with imagery, obviously, the code is all numbers - no flowers in the maths (unless Jake puts in a fibonacci line into the algorithm…). The presentation will be up to the webmasters and is easily changed/improved, it's just a matter of what images to use etc.

“Newsvine.com, for example, portrays initial members as a single line/stalk.  As they participate over time, leaves emerge onto the stalk.”

Great one! I'd love a nice flower in the profile, I love flowers! :) Something tells me, though, that to stay in-tune with the general current design of Zaadz the “circe” will be kept... There is a potential to, later, integrate the “circle” into the users' avatar throughout the site, I suppose admins considered that. But so far, the best “visual” improvement (imho) would be a link to a personal “garden” page.

And it seems best that the circle should show change number-based at first, starting with (e.g.) twenty “planted” seeds, then sixty, then 120 seeds planted, and therefrom go on reflecting the “proportionality” to everyone else's garden/seed count. It will be a pity for people with hundreds of seeds planted to have an empty circle later on, just because compared to others, 100 is not that much…

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi Zet,

I think you add some really nice ideas here. I just want to say that voicing opposition to one part of the seed system (the bad seeds) does not amount to disrespect of any kind. It just means that many of us–including several who have zmailed me voicing support but who have not responded openly in a thread–feel it would not be good for the atmosphere to have people sending bad seeds to one another, especially if this would affect their reputations or the brighteness of their beacons. I think the zaadz team has obviously done a great job with this place, and this is why we are voicing our opposition to the bad seeds–because we appreciate all that they have done and like it here. Great ideas, except that I don't think a change of language would change anyone's opinion about the negative feedback. I think, by whatever name we give it, negative feedback functions would make the place seem less friendly and inhibit open inquiry.

Best,

David

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Yes, I follow that line of thought from the other threads, too. I agree to this argument. And there surely is unvoiced protest to this. I had a similar feeling about “bad seeds”. Admins removed it rightly.

To start with, “bad seeds” sounds horrible. To people in tune with vibrations of words, this may be as bad as “thrown-out-baby”. We wouldn't want to give energy to such thoughtforms here on Zaaddz would we? Considering what many of us know about the power of words and visualisation… But that's only half the trouble.

Even if we consider that the concept is renamed, and all we see is a little “needs weeding?” button that can be described simply with an exclamation/question mark, “concern”… Can you list the problems this still leaves, please? So we can look at them one-by-be? For example, maybe it's necessary that the “rank” is minimally affected by “concern”, and no “concern” count is ever visible to anyone or nonexistant completely? A little exclamation mark icon next to posts and comments is hardly an ill omen, don't you think? It's rather very natural on forums of considerable size. Could you summarise your thoughts here again?..

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi Zet,

There have been so many important insights from so many different people, I couldn't just reduce it to a few of my own. Those insights can be found in this thread in particular and a few in this thread. 

A few important ones that come to mind are 1) People can have honest differences, and there are different types of people. For example, there are conservatives and liberals, believers and athiests, communists and capitalists–these warring tribes would simply attach negative tags to eachother's posts. And there are many, many different tribes like this, different “value spheres,” different ways of seeing the world. To allow people to attach a negative tag to people's posts as you suggest would not be kind to anyone, especially those with minority views, which might attract a great many even if they are better than the majority view. 2) People would get angry and send negative seeds for no good reason at all or because of a misunderstanding; 3) It's better to talk it out, explain, discuss, create better mutual understanding, etc. 4) It could hurt people's self-esteem; 5) It could diminish people's desire to participate, particularly those with minority views.

I've said what I've have to say on this subject, at least for now. Thanks to the zaadz team for being so open and listening to everyone.

Best,

David

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi David,

Let me try one more time to address some of these concerns of yours.

You wrote: 1) People can have honest differences, and there are different types of people. […] To allow people to attach a negative tag to people's posts as you suggest would not be kind to anyone, especially those with minority views….

As I've said before, I think this issue of warring factions can be kept under control with a well-designed seed auditing system.  Whenever any one person is getting a lot of “concern” notices (or whatever we decide to call them) over a short period of time, for example, the system can flag it for a real person to look into.  And I'm sure a creative programmer can come up with all sorts of patterns to look for in order to keep organized attacks under control.

And: 2) People would get angry and send negative seeds for no good reason at all or because of a misunderstanding;

OK, so?  One person submitting one concern notice isn't going to do anything to anyone, and the person being flagged in this way will never know about it.  So where's the harm?

Next point: 3) It's better to talk it out, explain, discuss, create better mutual understanding, etc.

Yes, and as I've said before, seeds are not replacing verbal feedback. They're simply providing a way to model the feedback in a manner that a computer can understand.

And finally: 4) It could hurt people's self-esteem; 5) It could diminish people's desire to participate, particularly those with minority views.

And how will essentially invisible notices of concern hurt someone's self-esteem or diminish their desire to participate?  (Remember, too, that there are already lots of checks and balances in place to prevent any one person from doing much harm with seeds.)  It seems to me that words have much more potential for doing that than the seeds system does.  People who would give concern notices out of anger or prejudice are most likely also going to express themselves verbally, as well.  If anything, giving a concern notice together with words of anger or prejudice (or whatever) will help the administrators to be aware of a person who has a tendency of venting on others in the community.

I also disagree that changing the language and metaphors will do nothing to improve things. Sure, if it's just window dressing, then I can agree with you.  But reframing the concept can do a whole lot towards finding a more evolved way of implementing the system and of using it.

Not to mention my view that equating the seeds system with “feedback” is the wrong way of looking at it.  I think we need to be very clear about the distinction between modeling feedback and the actual feedback itself. If the seeds system is presented as being a system of feedback, then it will likely be misused a lot more than if people understand that seeds don't replace feedback.

BTW, it also seems to me that if there's a way of anonymously supporting someone else's constructive criticism, it would, in many cases, be better than either a bunch of people essentially saying “me too” in comments or other posts or not doing anything at all out of concern of hurting someone's self-esteem or whatever. If someone else has already said pretty much all you could say on an issue, and one or two others have already supported it and maybe added their own slightly different perspectives (so that the person receiving the feedback knows it not just one person's opinion), then adding your support to this criticism through an anonymous, invisible concern notice might be the best course of action.

Metta,
Grey

Re: Seeds and Gardens

- just a couple of things I wanted to add to this thread.

The Garden metaphor seems particularly appropriate given that zaadz is transforming into Gaia.
 
I also wanted to copy Tantriksta's suggestion from this thread:

My suggestion is to create a set of value-vectors which could be rated on a 5 point scale….suggestions for categories would include; clear…informative…inspirational…witty…groundbreaking….many others, I am sure…

Negative ratings; zero to minus five…to replace bad seeds…offering some consensus as to why the negative rating was given.

One could then search for material which scored highly in one or more of these categories which could be clustered under various headings; integral, yoga, buddhism etc…

Those souls with more integrally-encompassing worldviews would be able to scan for quality material through adopting a set of criteria that may be hidden from those whose less expansive worldviews live through them…they in turn would evolve their own scanning criteria…the polyvalent system embraces everybody's  choice.

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Yep! (to all of the above… or below, depending on how you all are reading the thread ;-)

Also, I wanted to point out that the polyvalent system shouldn't be used to quantify and qualify philosophical or theoretical agreement or disagreement with what a person is saying or doing, but to express the type of energy (life force for the growth of our garden) you feel that they're contributing to the community.


~G

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Yep! (to all of the above… or below, depending on how you all are reading the thread ;-)

Also, I wanted to point out that the polyvalent system shouldn't be used to quantify and qualify philosophical or theoretical agreement or disagreement with what a person is saying or doing, but to express the type of energy (life force for the growth of our garden) you feel that they're contributing to the community.


~G

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Oh, wow.

I'm almost speechless, and that's saying something. :)

I just updated the description here—before seeing this conversation—but I think the latest explanation addresses at least some of what you've brought up. I'll reread and tweak if necessary, but I'm hopeful even now that it'll help.

And yes, it's longish. I sometimes wish the system wasn't quite so complicated (it is hard to explain…) but there's a genuine reason why it's not a simple little 'points' system, and we're still hopeful and excited and curious to see what might unfold.

Alright. I need to pop over to the Team blog and make sure people see the latest, but thank you thank you thank you again.

Thank you.

Re: Seeds and Gardens

No, thank you! The new description is an improvement for sure, might just be enough to stick to the original code. But I really hope you consider some things said here, just because this can be so much more exciting! But the issue with flagging remains, and I think I see another important aspect of it that I failed to notice, that was also criticised… Folding, and why it's needed. I keep bumping into rough language on some threads, and keep wondering what can be done about this. Folding may be a good idea, especially if you allow the authors of posts to fold their own text. That raises other issues, of course, like will such folding authorise more rough language use…

Siona will negative feedback stay off for a while or will it be re-enabled once the seed infrastructure is updated? I'm sure it's not just my question..

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi Siona,

Yeah, the new description is better, but I think it overemphasizes any feedback function the seeds may (or may not) have.

I think from an admin point of view, they definitely can be said to provide feedback, but feedback given to you admins, not to the individuals for whom the seeds are sown. Sure, there's a certain amount of indirect feedback in the form of the garden or beacon icon, but it takes so long for that to change, that any individual seeds sown lose almost all of their feedback value for that given individual.

Maybe the icon algorithm needs to be tweaked a bit to make the icon change more quickly, but I imagine that it'll never change so quickly that we could start to equate individual seeds with feedback to members of the community, especially not for specific things that they've done or written.

Either way, though, it seems to me that equating seeds with feedback to community members encourages seed-giving in place of giving actual verbal feedback, or at best creates confusion as to how best to give a person feedback.  So for all of these reasons (and one or two others that I haven't mentioned in this post, but have elsewhere I believe), I'd look for a way of describing the seeds system to the community that minimizes the use of the word feedback as much as possible.

With love and tons of appreciation,
Grey

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi everyone! I just noticed a few things in previous discussions/blogs and wanted to point them out again.

It seems to me there is confusion about why this innovation is taking place. Some people keep saying “why bother with those seeds?”, others don't see the point of “negative feedback”. One argument being - “can't the admins just do their job?”, “everything works fine, why bother?” etc. If anyone remembers from fome old WIE threads, I am keen on re-defining/identifying points of disagreement and misunderstanding, as they are often hidden beneath the surface language.

The change, the new system, is meant to:
 1.  -  make things much easier for admins/moderators
 2.  -  make content on Zaadz rate-able     
(list incomplete but thore seem to be the main points)

So let's help our beloved admins, shan't we? They have proven their conscience and friendliness and love for zaadz and us here numerous times already. Interpreting the points above…
1. - …they just may not be able to keep doing such a good job as there are more of us here! I've said earlier here: zaadz will have exploiters and enemies as it grows! That's why some NEW reporting system is needed. Anything. David, read Siona's plea, open “cryout” for our suggestions on the “flagging” system in the discussion you linked to! And admins weren't called fascist there because of hatred but because of plain misunderstanding of why this was offered. Anyway, away with the old “bad seeds”, the admins themselves saw it was bad, so bad seeds are dumped. Period.

In above posts I was mostly concentrating on the positive feedback (seeds) and its use/potential/implementation. Thanks for listing some points here about this David, I think I'll try to summarise the main “opposition” points, too, and then see what system may take all those concerns into consideration and still help admins keep Zaadz safe and enjoyable.

2. - Let me further interpret what admins roughly said already. Seeds can be given to users and to posted material. Give to users as a form of gratitude and potential benefit to Zaadz and beyond, if my suggestion about “communal garden” is considered. Give seeds to posted material so that is appears on the main page. Currently a “most popular” thread may be a long chat between two people about the digestion system of night butterflies that goes for ages. It may have a very high post rate but be of no interest to anyone but those two people! The seeds allow us through a simple click on a little button near someone's post to inform the rest of the community that this stuff is interesting. The seed grows and becomes a green plant that attracts attention… Thus a pod with three-four entries with extreme importance will not be lost to topics long but boring, but will be seen as “most nourished”, or “most liked”, or simply “one of the greenest”. We must realize that gaia.com is becoming an INFORMATION-source site, where people will come to for news, for our news. And instead of browsing through the entire Zaadz looking spending precious hours of their life and deciding for us what is hot/interesting/useful, admins will actually be guided by us, democratically. Later on we would be able to come up to them and ask directly “why didn't you put the post about how this famous person is a liar/this “sponsor” is a scam onto gaia.com if we all voted it extremely important?”. Do we understand that power is now being given into our hands? And furthermore, if the “charitable donation from seeds used” idea is considered, then perhaps each seed we plant may be equal to a little 1c donation? Aren't those two reasons, charity and democracy, enough to make us like, or at least support, seeds?

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I still haven’t fathomed how the seed system is working and I am not sure if it is a popularity system to see who can attract the most seeds, or if indeed those most generous with donating/ planting seeds attracts glow points? It all seems to have very little to do with what people actually post and I see very little reason as to why some glow and some don’t. When I gave several friends 5 points I expected to see a glow on each but not all were glowing, some who I think contribute a lot are still not glowing. LOL I am a dismal failure too - no glow yet, but it doesn’t affect the wonderful interactions and comments that I receive so I’m not unhappy ! Some announce their gift of seeds to the recipients, and others like me do it anonymously, I wonder if that makes a difference, personaly I didn’t want friends to feel obliged to reciprocate, and I think I preferred the level playing field for all, though I was prepared to approach seeds with an open mind. I really would like to feel I understand how it works in a fair and equitable way.

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I know I said I was finished, but you got me, Grey.  :)

  As I've said before, I think this issue of warring factions can be kept under control with a well-designed seed auditing system.  Whenever any one person is getting a lot of “concern” notices (or whatever we decide to call them) over a short period of time, for example, the system can flag it for a real person to look into.  And I'm sure a creative programmer can come up with all sorts of patterns to look for in order to keep organized attacks under control.

There is no way the computer could be programmed to determine what sort of value sphere the poster is coming from and whether the “concern” is simply over a value-sphere conflict (a worldview conflict, such as those between liberals and conservatives, athiests and believers, etc). Some of those worldview conflicts involve the flavor of discourse itself. For example, relativists tend to be quite communal; they do not value debate; they do not value “truth” and open inquiry. They value being together. So if someone writes a post contradicting their view, they think, “Hey! That's not right. I'm going to send that person a negative seed.” Egocentrics will react the same way. But others value getting to the truth of the matter, inquiring into places we haven't gone before, discussing controversial subjects in a serious manner, and speaking the truth of their own hearts and minds.  We need to strike the right balance between these things, but do you see how the bad seeds would favor the relativistic perspective, which is already in the majority?

The negative seeds, by whatever name we give them, would just allow people to throw negativity at one another without discussing it in a way that will create better understanding. And in addition to value-sphere conflicts, there is also shadow, angry moments, etc., which the computer would never be able to detect.  It would make it an less friendly place and, most importantly, discourage unpopular and minority opinions. 

Another trouble with it is that people could send these things without having their names attached to them. They wouldn't have to answer to them. Anytime they felt irked they could just send one off. If everyone could know who sent them and when; if there would be a record of it, the idea would improve; there would be some social price for sending them, but it would still just make it easier for people to say something negative rather than engaging in a constructive way.


And: 2) People would get angry and send negative seeds for no good reason at all or because of a misunderstanding;

OK, so?  One person submitting one concern notice isn't going to do anything to anyone, and the person being flagged in this way will never know about it.  So where's the harm?

I'm amazed that you would say this, Grey (“OK, so?”). These seeds would feel hurful to people; it would feel like someone said “You're stupid” or “Shut up” or “I don't like you.” And that's how people would feel if their beacon dimmed.

Let's have the flags for egregious malefactions and let moderators do the rest. What's the matter with that? In addition people could start a thread in the Think Tank or contact a member of the zaadz team if they think there has been abuse. The “concerns” would just encourage people to cause trouble for eachother over little things, undermine the trust that's already there, and create sameness–it would discourage minority or unpopular views.

   

And finally: 4) It could hurt people's self-esteem; 5) It could diminish people's desire to participate, particularly those with minority views.

And how will essentially invisible notices of concern hurt someone's self-esteem or diminish their desire to participate? 

Because they wouldn't be invisible; they would be visible–they would be reflected in a person's repution or beacon. No one would know why they had been sent; the person would never be able to argue their case or explain themselves, but they would nevertheless affect their “reputation.”
 

BTW, it also seems to me that if there's a way of anonymously supporting someone else's constructive criticism, it would, in many cases, be better than either a bunch of people essentially saying “me too” in comments or other posts or not doing anything at all out of concern of hurting someone's self-esteem or whatever.

Re: Seeds and Gardens

David: There is no way the computer could be programmed to determine what sort of value sphere the poster is coming from and whether the “concern” is simply over a value-sphere conflict….

No, that's true, at least not based on seeds alone, but I'm not suggesting that it should try.  All I'm saying is that the computer can detect patterns and high levels of seed-giving and then flag those situations for a real person to look into and take any necessary action on, which could include manually adjusting a person's garden icon (or beacon or whatever) and engaging with the people involved in the conflict in order to seek to resolve it.

David: The negative seeds, by whatever name we give them, would just allow people to throw negativity at one another without discussing it in a way that will create better understanding.

Well, first, I disagree with the “by whatever name we give them” idea, because it seems to me that if the “concern” side of the equation is worded properly, it will give negativity-throwers less satisfaction than giving actual “bad seeds”, as well as encouraging them to think a bit more before deciding which concern rating to assign. But apart from that, I've also said that people should be encouraged, when giving concern ratings, to provide verbal feedback, as well. Some won't, some will, but that's true even without a seeds system. At least the seeds system provides another opportunity to encourage verbal feedback.

David: Another trouble with it is that people could send these things without having their names attached to them. They wouldn't have to answer to them.

Well, I'm assuming that the information system and the admins will have access to who's giving seeds to whom, precisely so that there will be some accountability.  What's the point of having the auditing system I've suggested without having names attached to seeds?

David: I'm amazed that you would say this, Grey (“OK, so?”). These seeds would feel hurful to people; it would feel like someone said “You're stupid” or “Shut up” or “I don't like you.” And that's how people would feel if their beacon dimmed.

Again, how in the world does one person giving a concern rating equate to saying “Shut up” or “You're stupid”?  I mean, I've given 5 seeds to an individual plus “I like” ratings to that person's content, and their beacon didn't budge.  And good seeds were theoretically to be weighted more than the “bad seeds” or flags-for-review.

A lot of people are going to have to be giving a person concern ratings for that to have any visible impact on a person's garden or beacon, and if a lot of people are doing that, then there's either good reason for it or it's some sort of unified attack (either naturally arising or explicitly organized), but either way, it should be something the system can flag for a real person to look into.

David: Let's have the flags for egregious malefactions and let moderators do the rest. What's the matter with that? In addition people could start a thread in the Think Tank or contact a member of the zaadz team if they think there has been abuse.

The problem with that is that it only focuses on actual policy abuse and does nothing to help bring quality content to the fore or to flag situations where a person may be consistently walking the line between actual abuse and just being an ongoing nuisance to the community.  Sure, the Think Tank or other admin-related pods can help, but not everyone participates in the Think Tank, and the seeds system can help provide a lot more data for admins to look at when deciding what action needs to be taken.

David: The “concerns” would just encourage people to cause trouble for eachother over little things, undermine the trust that's already there, and create sameness–it would discourage minority or unpopular views.

Here it seems to me that you're still just seeing the “concern” language as just window dressing for “bad seeds”, rather than an actual… well, paradigm shift, as well as also giving the individual concern ratings way more power than they would actually have.  It seems to me that a well-implemented seeds system would actually do just the opposite of what you're suggesting, as I've already said.  The seeds system should actually help bring valuable minority views to the fore and downplay the less valuable, but highly active content, which would also help the more valuable, less active content stand out.

David: Grey, I'd like to help you do all the things you want to do, but please try to hear the perspective of the many people who have objected to this one method. There are many ways to accomplish the things you want to accomplish. Why not just work a little harder and come up with something everybody is comfortable with?

I am hearing your perspective, David, but you seem to want to equate “hearing” with taking your position that concern ratings can never work.  And I realize there are many ways of accomplishing these things, and I've acknowledged ideas of yours that I think are quite good.  I just don't think that it has to be an either/or issue.  A well-implemented seeds system, with both encouragement and concern sides to the equation, will, in my opinion and in the opinion of others here as far as I can tell, go a long way towards complementing all of the other features of the social network and shouldn't be rejected just out of fear of negativity.

And I object to your “work a little harder” comment, because I'm putting about as much effort into the development of the community as I have time for, and suggesting that I work harder is, to be honest, just a little bit offensive.  Not to mention the fact that your idea that we can come up with a system that ”everybody is comfortable with” is diametrically opposed to your valid concerns about depth vs. span.

You've mentioned in another thread that you'd like to see a group of volunteers helping the Zaadz team to find good content, and I think this is a good idea to be developed further, but many of the claims your making against the seeds system would apply equally to this team of volunteers. How do we decide who gets to be such a volunteer? If it's just a random sampling of the Zaadz community (or selected by democratic vote), how is that any better, statistically speaking, than the entire community flagging content they like or are concerned about?

And if it's a select few, chosen for their more evolved worldviews (which I think it probably should be, btw), how is that going to be something “everybody is comfortable with”?  And how exactly do we decide who's got a more evolved worldview?  Sounds like there's quite a bit of potential for cronyism and turning things into an even more blatant popularity contest. And even if the volunteers are well selected, others will certainly see the system as a popularity contest, especially if they don't see themselves as having a say in the whole process – something that the seeds system together with a system of volunteers could help a great deal with.

And how many volunteers would we need in order to provide sufficient coverage for the content of the entire community?  Too many, I suspect.  So again, a seeds system together with volunteers seems to be the way to go to me.

Let's enable technology to help a small group of people manage such a large and growing community, rather than assuming just a few people alone can handle everything.  And a well-designed seeds system should go a long way towards helping involve the entire community in expressing appreciation and concern in a manner than can be collated by a computer and presented to real people to manage in whatever manner necessary.

Metta,
Grey

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Flagging-folding. It occurred to me that folding is something useful but needs not be linked to reducing points/flagging for review. First, give conscious posters an ability to “fold” their entry that will be folded/hidden to anyone who hasn't selected an option in their profile “automatically show questionable content”, or something like that. Second, make a “hide”-looking button below a post/comment, like a fig leaf hiding “indecency”. Put an algorithm to count the seeds “spent” on the hide button, and as soon as, for exaple, 5 seeds are spent, the content is automatically folded. (Basically a big enough bush grows and hides the thing.) As I understood it, any folded/hidden entry can be unfolded immediately, all it takes is a singe click on some “unfold/reveal” button. David, and other people who have concerns with the “flagging/reporting”, does this folding system by itself pose any objections? (Just this, it would be easier to deal with “flag for review” part separately.)

(P.S. Hmm… If everyone is giving seeds to everyone regardlessly I don't see how quiet voices will be magnified actually…)

Re: Seeds and Gardens

David, taking into account what you just said, consider the abovementioned folding system only working for everyone else but the author. The entry won’t fold/hide for the author obviously, but do you think he/she should be able to know that their entry is hidden for others? Sandra, I loved Tantriksta's suggestion, and at first I thought it would be too much of a hassle to do more complex “rating”, complex and time-consuming… But now it all blended into something…

How about this. Before: Post/thread/pic rated by views+comments. New seeds: post/thread/pic rated by views+comments+seedcount, seedcount being the only difference. Based on Tantriksta's idea, here’s how such rating can be made more precise. There is a droplist with numbers zero-to-X is near a button “plant/give seeds”, which is present both near the author’s post/thread/pic and near the window when we are writing our comment to the text/pic. When we post a comment, a 1-seed-give option will be chosen by default, unless we decide to change this in the droplist for this particular comment. We can choose not to give/plant a seed, or to give more. How much more we can give/plant will depend on the size of our own garden/seedcount, for example, new entrants can give maximum 2 seeds per comment, as the seedcount reaches 20 (which is achieved quickly) we can give 3 seeds per comment, etc. The point is, if we don’t change the default “give-1-seed” option, we don’t loose a seed (since every comment also replenishes our bank by 1 seed). If we don’t want to give, this will mean the “rating” of the post/pic/andAUTHOR will not go down… It will simply not go up as usual! What’d you say to this guys?

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Zet, I just don't think that having people rating eachother is what we need to establish a more evolved community. It would make it like a competition rather than a sangha and would be sure to generate ill will and hurt feelings.

Best,

David

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I see what you’re saying here, David… But sangha is a different kind of community altogether. I would love to be a part of one, but this is not yet the time. For sangha you need everyone to be very conscious and awakened, it’s a community of monks, not visionaries who employ conscious capitalism and try to combine voices to change the world. Do you see my point here?

Rating each other negatively does seem odd, but the ‘positive’ rating zaadz is trying to use is not aimed at separation or dischord. We are not really going to rate each other, but rather the information that is presented by us. When I, for example, give you 5 seeds, it’s not because you’re a nice chap who likes the same movies as I and votes for the same party - it’s because I think your way of presenting information can be of particular helpfulness to the community, and the world, if you agree we are set out on helping it improve. I would value an awakened view on cleaning liquids more than an ‘om shanti’ repeated message, simply because I can read ‘om shanti’ on every other blog, but a constructive, witty and critical analysis of something practical is rather scarce. The beauty of it is that someone else may prefer ‘om shanti’ content and give that more attention and seeds, and that is what is good! That is encouraged by the seeds. It’s not rating people, it’s expressing your own individuality, it’s getting the whole of zaadz to recognise your interests, but in a practical way. And it will not make a minority silenced: a minority group doesn’t get to the ‘hots’ anyway, but with seeds it has a much stronger potential to make its voice heard and appreciated.

Again, the combined expression of Zaadz interests through seeds will make our voice stronger and will enable zaadz to have more ‘strength’ in changing the world… Which is what it’s all about.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but sangha doesn’t want to change the world, but to live quietly in peace. This is not yet the time for that, because most of the world is not allowed this peace. Most of the world is blinded and exploited. People who could potentially form a sangha won’t pay any attention to the beacon/seedcount or ‘hot’ lists, so are in no way marginalised by seeds. People who don’t want just quiet peace but action will keep talking, generating thoughtforms and transformational ideas, and further empowering them through seeds. And I hope you can see how giving an idea even a virtual/algorythmic boost through such a strong imagery as planting seeds can really have an impact on info-energetic levels.

Plus, how do I show appreciation for a blog/thread post if I have nothing useful to add and consider posting ‘this is cool’ comments as flood, or am just being shy to do so? How do I get my voice heard at all? With seeds, it becomes possible.

I disagree with the flagging system as described by admins there right NOW, but that is set to changeand Siona made it clear that they are all ears for better suggestions. So far I tried to stay clear of flagging and speculated about planting seeds and hiding ‘mature(?)’ content. Do you think at least those two can work? I tried to get rid of negative feedback through ‘0-seeds-given’ and to separate ranking and concealment of material. Does that sound a bit more fair?..

Re: Seeds and Gardens

David: But anything can be a competition if you want to see it that way!

Right now the 'competitiveness' is around views and comments; it's on this that the 'hot' pages are based. We show the number of friends a member has–should we worry about people feeling hurt because they don't have as many as others?

To my mind, the only way the seeds would generate ill will or hurt feelings would be if they're taken personally. If I start worrying about how many seeds I've generated (a somewhat useless measure, as the number I can accumulate is capped) or start fretting about how many have been spent on me or my contributions, then I suppose I might be concerned about “not measuring up.” However, if I look at the system from the perspective of Zaadz as a whole (“How can I help other members find postings and conversations that I've found valuable? How can I help ensure that the content on the site continues to remain in alignment with the values we agreed to when we joined? How can I participate in organizing the vast realms of information here?”) it takes on a different feel.

Zet, Grey, and Sandra: Your thoughts around an even more nuanced system are lovely; the idea of more detail (being able to say 'why' you'd recommend a post, so we can find 'most inspirational' or 'most supportive' or 'most thought-provoking' or 'most creative' etc. content) alone is excellent. I'd worry a bit about overwhelming people, given that the mere one-button thing seems to be causing enough worries about 'one more thing to do', but it's certain true that no one would *need* to participate. :)

A semi-aside: we've talked about the notion of a 'resonance' option. You'd get to select posts or entries that resonate with you, and as a result, we could see what the level of resonance in the whole community might be. (And perhaps if you resonate with another member you could see which content spoke to them…)

And we'll look more closely at the folding options / possibilities.

Thank you, all. Hugely. This discussion is a treat just to follow.

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi Siona,

First let me say that I really appreciate all the care and time you are putting into this. What makes this different than what has happened before is that the feedback would have an impact on a person's reputation and the brightness of their beacon–there are many reasons why this doesn't make sense: there are different value spheres, types of people, shadow, everyday suffering that people want to take out on someone. This would just empower the majority worldview, cliques, and discourage people from saying anything that might be disagreeable to other people.

The idea that the “reputations” people accumulate could eventually be held against them is quite monstrous. This is like, at the end of the trial, a lawyer turning to the jury and saying, “Ladies and gentleman, in addition to the evidence I've presented, 72 of this man's fellow citizens have said that they don't care for what he has to say. In addition, they say he irritates them. Please bear that in mind during your deliberations.” There's no way any modern society would adopt such a system because it 1) doesn't show enough respect for minority views and value spheres (with the dimming of peoples' beacons) and 2) doesn't integrate modern ideas of justice.

All the best,

David

Re: Seeds and Gardens

David, I do appreciate your positive intentions and your compassion for the powerless.  However, I don't see how can we create different ways to live if we are always fearful, assuming that people will act from their basest impulses, and that the Zaadz Team will allow this to degernerate into “Lord of the Flies” or sit on their hands while zaadsters turn into stepford wives.  What if your concerns turn out to have been unfounded, and Zaadz fails to experiment as it wishes?  And we never create an amazing community that could have been?

From my experience, being unpopular is actually a badge of courage for many thinkers and would not deter or shape their expressions whatsoever.  There are plenty of nooks and crannies in which people can gather, well-lit rooms of open discussion and dimly lit catecombs where people can gather to revel in their anonymity.  There are many checks and balances in place, and many more can be developed as needed.  I also know that many of us Zaadsters are so concerned about unpopular voices that they will take special care to nurture them with seeds.  I do that.  Don't you?  The admins are counting on this - and perhaps we will all rise to the challenges of self-regulating our community.  Isn't this worth a try?  We've got some brilliant architechts and admins here.  If things get messed up, the worst that can happen is that we'll all have to start over more or less.  And that could turn out to be an immense blessing - not a horrifying disaster.

Zaadz is the organization that is willing to take the risk here.  How many  business “owners” are betting on us to be our best and highest selves?  Not many.  They're all out there making profits from our greed and our insecurities.  Siona is betting that Zaadz can grow and evolve into a diverse community of depth, respect and immense creativity and vitality, the likes of which we have never before seen.  Could it become a leading edge progressive community that makes “move-on” seem puny, or a community that hosts and shapes the Presidential Debates in 2012, or that launches major new media and volunteering projects?

For one, I'm excited about this adventure.

Peace,

Earon

Re: Seeds and Gardens

David: The idea that the “reputations” people accumulate could eventually be held against them is quite monstrous. This is like, at the end of the trial, a lawyer turning to the jury and saying, “Ladies and gentleman, in addition to the evidence I've presented, 72 of this man's fellow citizens have said that they don't care for what he has to say. In addition, they say he irritates them. Please bear that in mind during your deliberations.”

No, I don't think that it is the same thing, David.  Well, actually, as the seeds system is currently implemented with only good seeds and no concern side to the equation, maybe it actually sort of is the same thing. But if we add concern to the equation, then the judge (i.e. the Zaadz admins in this metaphor) would have actual facts to take into consideration, given that there would be data on who's expressing concern, how many people are expressing concern, and what situations they're concerned about.  And some of these people can then be encouraged, either directly or indirectly, to come forward and provide more detailed testimony and discuss the situation in greater detail in order to reach some (hopefully higher) mutual understanding.

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Earon, if there were trust, there wouldn't be a need for the negative seeds. Also the community is already self-regulating and self-moderating. This is one of the really odd things about this debate. I hear arguements that people out there are “constantly pushing the limits of good behavior.” I don't see this, generally, and when it has happened people have stepped in and said something about it. People have learned and grown as a result. No one who used to push the limits on the pods I have been on is pushing them now–absolutely no one. The system is already working, and I challenge anyone to come up with evidence that it isn't. If more people joined, then there would be more moderators and more people to step in as well. The flagging system would also help.

I'd also like to point out that the many people who opposed this idea think that the matter is all over and done with. They don't know that a few people are working zealously to push it through. I only found out about it through a thread on the I-I pod.

David

 

Re: Seeds and Gardens

David said: “Also the community is already self-regulating and self-moderating. This is one of the really odd things about this debate. I hear arguements that people out there are “constantly pushing the limits of good behavior.” I don't see this, generally, and when it has happened people have stepped in and said something about it. ”

good point. just to let you know, with the number of membership we have right now, we almost have a negligible amount of spam messages and people that we deactivate on the site (for not adhering with our Terms of Use). thanks to the vigilance of our members.

so i agree, so far the community is already self-sustaining and self-moderating. however, a lot of this has something to do with the overall size of the community and its active members. compared to other social networks (like Facebook, Friendster, Bebo, or MySpace), our member count is just a drop in the bucket, not to mention the count of active members. one of the reasons the Seed System was implemented is to prepare for the rapid growth of our community in the months (and years) to come. the dynamics of the community will definitely change once we hit the tipping point of our growth. that's why we need to have something like the Seed System so that collective preference of members will be taken into consideration when aggregating and featuring contents in some future portals.

again, there is no such thing as a “negative” (or bad) seed. so can we erase this from our vocabulary now? :) please check out the updates to the Seed System for more info.

allow me to describe once more what the Seed System is:

the Seed System is a voting system, trust system, reputation system, community self-regulating system, all rolled into one.

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

1) as a voting and self-regulating system, it's a way to place your vote on good contents so they would bubble up on the site. the more vote (or seed) a content received, the more visible they become on the site. this way we can create a portal featuring all the good contents that the community voted for. also, this is a way for the community to self-regulate itself by making the more meaningful contents more visible than the not-so meaningful content. the collective seeds (or votes) of the community will be used to decide on this instead of a few people picking and choosing the featured contents.

2) as a trust and reputation system, it's a way of sending your gratitude to other members on Zaadz by rewarding them more reputation and visibility on the site. members reputation are signified by the glowing graphic on their main page. this symbolic reputation gives other members a hint how “trustworthy” a particular member is. this also denotes how active the member is on the site. this is not intended to be a contest. however, overtime, we can use the reputation data to feature members who are “voted” by the community so as to make them more visible on the site.

having said that, you don't have to use it. you are in no way obligated to use it. although we highly recommend that you give those seeds away, the best way to use the seeds is to just keep it in the background and use it only if and when you feel like it. just keep doing what you're doing. be who you say you are. do what you think you have to do. say what you have to say. be yourself.

the Seed System as it is right now is an early implementation. we'll continue to refine the system and build other features on top of it that would use the data from the seeds given out by members of this community.

thanks for all your feedback and understanding.

~C

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Thank you very much, C. I really appreciate that.

David

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Dave
you are absolutely right we gotta give and help others if we have enough i mean actuakllly we all always have enough to help feed people and volunteer to make a small cjhange evenn it all begins with a thought  and turns into something greater a thought is a seed if you nurture it it will grow lets all plant all our seeds whats the point of hoarding themm they wont grow that way and then you have nothing so get rid of them

Re: Seeds and Gardens

To those working through these deep and insightful ideas here, and for Zet for the garden metaphor, I tried to cast some big love in your directions…

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I'm so enjoying this thread, appreciation to everyone contributing. Off to plant some seeds in your direction as soon as I finish this comment..

In random order:

David:I'd also like to point out that the many people who opposed this idea think that the matter is all over and done with.

I think we here can try to address this - I've just posted a note in the Diving Deeper pod on a thread that had quite a bit of activity and opposition to the idea ( myself included, at the beginning).

C4: voting system, trust system, reputation system, community self-regulating system, all rolled into one.

Thanks for this - and at the same time I feel there is a possibility here for the system to actually be something 'more'.

I'm hugely attached to Tantriksta's suggestion to expand the seed system in a way that encourages us to take some time and think about what exactly we do feel about a post (eg uplifting, challenging etc). Siona, I know you mentioned you liked this idea, :-)

Zet you say it could be too much of a hassle to do more complex “rating”, complex and time-consuming - but I'm wondering if in fact the time is worth putting in, especially considering your note, C4, about the system being in place for a projected increase in numbers or members and activity here - it would certainly help sort material. Would a more expansive system not support ”aggregating and featuring contents in some future portals” ?

I would like to address the dialogue between David and Grey a little - I really see this as a 'work in progress' - already changes have been made because of members' feedback.
David, while I'm with you on most of your concerns, your approach seems to be based on it being a fixed system. I also personally feel that the more 'input' and energy I give the community and situations like this, the more likely change will happen. I have a 'positive' experience with this as I have already mentioned - regarding removal of the 'blinking ads'. If we had not spoken up, they would still be there.

My sense is that if we move away from vocabulary like 'reputation', 'trust' , 'voting' and more into the garden metaphor language that Zet originally began this thread with, something can shift. I'm not saying 'window dress' a negative/positive rating system so it looks like something else - but I do feel if I personally take a look at the system from another angle - I will use the system differently: i.e. not in a way that simplistically divides things out into 'good' and 'bad'.

If we all reframe our vision of what this system is about, or a goodly number of us, and act accordingly -then I sense it will create a ripple effect within the community.

I'm including moving away from the word 'rate' - as it seems to imply judgment (i.e. good vs bad) - I'm with David on this one. 

And I do see this system as having a huge potential for us as a community, even as it stands now.

I totally agree with Zet: We are not really going to rate each other, but rather the information that is presented by us. My take has always been that the seeds be used for 'content' not for people.

However, my sense is that many people will use the system to 'rate' each other, which isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing - for the most part I feel this is an exceptional community -  who is going to 'rate' positively someone who contravenes the zaadz/gaia terms and conditions? Maybe occasionally, but I doubt enough to make a difference.  I feel we can move away from the  concerns about 'popularity' if we broaden the use of the seeds to include a way to comment (tag) on content that sorts it into categories rather than a hierarchical scale of worth.

Love,
Sandra

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hello, This is my first reply or posting on Zaadz (soon to be Gaia) though I have been browsing and getting a 'feel' for things. The first thing that strikes me in this space (not just this thread) is the level of discussion; I am inspired by a great deal of what people are communicating. I deeply appreciate the possibilities that are presented here. I've been wondering where to start and this seems a pretty good place to dive in.

Zet - I resonate with a lot of what you say. I appreciate your clarity and the image of a garden with regard to this issue of 'seeds' has given us lots of energy. Thank you.

When we talk in terms of nature we never even think to compare a little city garden with a national park as being better or worse. How can a tree be better than a tomato plant growing in your back yard? Nor do we think in terms of hoarding seeds. There would be no gain to do so unless you were creating a seed bank to preserve varietals. You might, however, consider when would be the most auspicious time to plant. Getting our thinking to move away from seeds as representing money in any form may be revolutionary for some.

We are heavily conditioned (whatever our cultural background, it seems to me) into separating the world into categories. Certainly this is one way that we make sense of this world we inhabit. At the same time this thinking limits us because when you boil it right down we divide everything into a good or bad dichotomy (read like or dislike).

Zet: But sangha is a different kind of community altogether. I would love to be a part of one, but this is not yet the time. For sangha you need everyone to be very conscious and awakened, it’s a community of monks, not visionaries who employ conscious capitalism and try to combine voices to change the world. Do you see my point here?

Surely, Zet, it IS the time, not to join a contemplative community perhaps, but to awaken to the possibility that exists here and now in THIS Zaadz community. Surely this is what we are attempting to do here (aren't we?). We don't have to wait for some ideal time or place. We can embrace the awakening that is happening in every moment in each of us; we can say, “yes” and have the courage to live in a way that encourages gardens of all kinds to grow. Is not a sign of healthy environments the diversity of flora and fauna that exist within that ecosphere?And would this not create the sangha you would love to be a part of in the larger world we inhabit? At one time there were monks who were visionaries that created sanghas. Perhaps you are a really a visionary monk creating sangha in the larger world, a world in which being conscious is not reserved for special places and times but infuses every relationship.

Zet: If we want to change the world, we must force the commercial powers of this world to change, because they are mostly responsible for the mess this world is facing!

I would say that any business is only as conscious as the individuals who comprise it and their ability to communicate what they know effectively with each other. It's people who make up these commercial powers. Seems to me that if I range myself against them then I am simply playing out my conditioning - separating things into good and bad. If I don't take responsibility for my own actions, I'm left with blaming someone else for the ills of the world when in truth it's up to me (and each of us). I can choose not to buy a product, or shop from a particular store. That sends out a message, magnified by the number of people who do so.

There's another message that can also be sent out which is to support those businesses that encourage practices that are sustainable and supportive of the communities they inhabit. I can buy those products or support them by telling others about them. Most corporations are well aware that success cannot only be measured by the last quarterly result, even though the way the market is set up heavily weights that particular way of measuring.

Zet: Zaadz needs to grow economically, and however weird this sounds, this should be in our interest.

Yes, yes! Your suggestion that Zaadz offers advertisers a way of 'giving back' is a great way to get seeds to work in the real world. So advertiser dollars goes to Zaadz/Gaia community project for example and Zaadsters give seeds to the idea they'd like to grow. This would be a direct way that we, the Zaadz community ,could manifest our vision into the larger community of the world.

A note about seed value: I read somewhere, but can't find now, an argument about the 'problem' of someone's voice (seed?!) having more 'weight' than someone else's. With or without seeds or rating systems there are always people who are more listened to than others. They simply have more weight because of who they are and how they live their lives. I listen to the Dalai Lama, for example. So do many others. I value him not so much because of what he says, but because he lives what he says. If the current Dalai Lama had been a different sort of man, perhaps the world would never have heard of him. The fact is we are continually 'giving seeds' to people who touch us or challenge us to think more deeply. And we're always looking to 'give seeds' because that is one way to feel connected. An actor walks on stage and the audience gives her their whole attention; they want her to succeed because everyone sitting in the theatre wants to be transported out of his/her ordinary life.


David: The negative seeds, by whatever name we give them, would just allow people to throw negativity at one another without discussing it in a way that will create better understanding…  … Another trouble with it is that people could send these things without having their names attached to them. They wouldn't have to answer to them.

I'm often surprised by what people let themselves say from the anonymity of cyberspace that I have little doubt they would never say in a public 'real time' forum. Lots of people here have pointed out pros and cons for clicking on a button to voice positive or negative feedback. One of the things I'm most impressed with here, as I said, is the level of discussion - it's wonderful how many people are taking the time to tune in, read through and consider a wealth of material, and then reply. Hmm, is this consciousness at play?

We have an opportunity here not to play small, looking for easy solutions by clicking on a button that says 'welcome or not welcome' or 'good or bad', even 'thanks or no thanks'. This is old language that can only separate… me from you, us from them. Thank you Sandra and others for offering something more in our search for a new dialogue: having options like 'made me think' or 'uplifting' or 'of interest to me' for example encourages people to tune in and not revert to the knee-jerk conditioned reaction.

By offering these kinds of options (which could be categorized and sorted later to help people find what they consider useful or of interest) perhaps we invite greater personal responsibility and engagement.

Thank you for reading.

With love,

David

Re: Seeds and Gardens

DavidC,

A huge and warm welcome to your presence.  I loved reading your post and ask that you become hopelessly lost and trapped here forever.  (heh heh)

Best,
Michael

Re: Seeds and Gardens

David: The idea that the “reputations” people accumulate could eventually be held against them is quite monstrous. This is like, at the end of the trial, a lawyer turning to the jury and saying, “Ladies and gentleman, in addition to the evidence I've presented, 72 of this man's fellow citizens have said that they don't care for what he has to say. In addition, they say he irritates them. Please bear that in mind during your deliberations.”

 Grey: No, I don't think that it is the same thing, David.  Well, actually, as the seeds system is currently implemented with only good seeds and no concern side to the equation, maybe it actually sort of is the same thing. But if we add concern to the equation, then the judge (i.e. the Zaadz admins in this metaphor) would have actual facts to take into consideration, given that there would be data on who's expressing concern, how many people are expressing concern, and what situations they're concerned about.  And some of these people can then be encouraged, either directly or indirectly, to come forward and provide more detailed testimony and discuss the situation in greater detail in order to reach some (hopefully higher) mutual understanding.

The concern idea doesn't sit well with me for a couple of reasons:

1) It would make it too easy for people just to send them out, perhaps a group or clique, and cause trouble for the person via moderators rather than try to work with the person out of a sense of care. This careful interaction and engagement is the most important thing. People have to first try working it out themselves, but many people are too cynical and lazy and would find it too easy to just send out a “concern.”

2) It would discourage people from speaking their minds, favoring the pluralistic value sphere and at the same time crowding out minority opinions–and it really would do this, Grey. I think you should consider the effect this would have on open inquiry. These “concerns” are really unnecessary, as people have people have pointed out–the system is already self-regulating. It does seem to me you are on a bit of a witch hunt. Comments like the one you made about people continually pushing the bounds of good behavior being more of a threat to the community than even the egregious violators are not grounded in reality–it's just not happening. Can you see how “concerns” would serve to enforce both the pluralistic value sphere, political correctness, and a feminine value sphere?

3) What would be patently unfair about the concerns is if they were to become divorced from the situation in which they had occured. If people were to just accumulate concerns, say, by number, with nothing to connect them to the situation then, from an integral perspectve they would be quite meaningless (the person's unpopularity is all they would tell you) and from a modern perspective inadmissable in a fair hearing. For the many reasons I have stated I don't think the concerns would be a good idea, but if we were to put them in, then there must be a name, date, and thread attached to each one, so if the “accused” would like to he or she could go back and dispute each one, attempt to prove they had been scapegoated by a clique, driven off by a different value sphere, point out double standards and hypocrisies, been projected upon, that someone or a group was holding a grudge, etc. Anything less than this would be blatantly unfair.

If this were not possible, you would be making a mistake in instituting it.

And I don't bold often, let alone underline, so don't take it lightly!  :)

David

Re: Seeds and Gardens

David wrote:
The concern idea doesn't sit well with me for a couple of reasons:

1) It would make it too easy for people just to send them out, perhaps a group or clique, and cause trouble for the person via moderators rather than try to work with the person out of a sense of care. This careful interaction and engagement is the most important thing. People have to first try working it out themselves, but many people are too cynical and lazy and would find it too easy to just send out a “concern.”

Two things come to mind here.  One I've already said on a number of occasions: when a person sows a seed on the concern side of the street in particular, they can be asked to confirm it (as already happens with the flags for review) and be encouraged to also engage the person verbally, maybe even providing a link to a blog entry or pod thread that discusses techniques of reverent communication or something similar (and/or Zaadz policy guidelines) in order to help the person understand how they can dialogue with another member who's pushing their buttons for some reason.

The second is that skillful wording of the concern seeds could also encourage a bit of reflection before choosing the seed that fits the situation best.  Things like “I'm feeling some buttons being pushed” or “I feel uncomfortable reading this”.  These are a couple of initial ideas off the top of my head, but the point is that they would focus on the seed sower's internal feelings, rather than on the person or content for which the seed is being sown.

I think both of these things would actually help add value to the dialogue, rather than taking away from it.

David continued:
2) It would discourage people from speaking their minds, favoring the pluralistic value sphere and at the same time crowding out minority opinions–and it really would do this, Grey.

And you know this how exactly?  As others have pointed out, this seeds system is very much a work in progress, and I think there's a lot of potential to make it something truly innovative.  Sure, there are some issues to be pondered concerning span vs. depth, but the system is intended to bring out minority opinion, not suppress it, and it seems to me that it has a lot of potential to achieve that goal.

And:
These “concerns” are really unnecessary, as people have people have pointed out–the system is already self-regulating.

And as people have also pointed out, it's self-regulating now, but why should we expect it to continue self-regulating as the community grows without getting creative with something like this seeds system?

And this one I really like:
It does seem to me you are on a bit of a witch hunt. Comments like the one you made about people continually pushing the bounds of good behavior being more of a threat to the community than even the egregious violators are not grounded in reality–it's just not happening.

A witch hunt? Where did that come from?

My example of a theoretical person pushing the limits of being a responsible member of the community was merely an example of what could very well happen, particularly as the community grows, not a claim that it was already a major threat to be dealt with, although I'm not convinced by your claim that it's not happening at all.  It may not be a serious problem, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there are no community members that have a tendency to push the limits a little too far.

But that wasn't my point.  My point was that a hypothetical person like this (which concern seeds, or whatever we decide to call them if they're ever implemented, could help detect) could, in my opinion, be more of a threat to the wellbeing of the community than a person who makes a mistake and clearly violates community policy just once (which the flag-for-review function is designed for).

But even that doesn't mean that I would necessarily want to see a person like this kicked out of the community.  In fact, it may very well be that they are pushing buttons that need to be pushed, so it may be that the people expressing concern need more support (in order to see the value of the weeds, for example) than the person doing the button pushing.  A seeds system with concern seeds would help the admins or whoever (volunteers as you've suggested) to notice the situation, evaluate it, and decide what support to give or action to take.

Finally:
3) What would be patently unfair about the concerns is if they were to become divorced from the situation in which they had occured.

I don't know if this is directed at me or is just for general discussion, but I have never suggested that the seeds be divorced from the situation in which they had occurred.  I agree that this would be a bad thing, but I don't think anyone has suggested that this would be how the system is designed.  It seems to me that the system could always track what content a seed was sown for and who sowed a given seed. I mean, how else could seeds help promote members and their content if they don't remain connected to that content?

I don't think this information should be public knowledge, because I think seed sowing needs to remain anonymous, but the admins and moderators should have access to that information in order to assess situations and decide how to deal with them. And I would think that, in most situations, they could provide the needed support to both the sowers and “sowees” without having to disclose seed sowing specifics.

As ~C4Chaos has said (I think it was him anyway, but maybe it was Siona), the seeds system is a reality, so rather than talking about why it shouldn't be implemented, let's talk about ways of making it a truly innovative tool in promoting a sustainable community.

So for example, rather than just saying that the seeds promote pluralism (as if that's reason enough to abolish the system), let's talk about when exactly that might not be what's best for the community and kick around ideas for dealing with those situations.  Let's not forget that healthy pluralism is actually a good thing, not something to be eradicated at all costs.

With love,
Grey

Re: Seeds and Gardens

DavidC:

Zet: Zaadz needs to grow economically, and however weird this sounds, this should be in our interest.

Yes, yes! Your suggestion that Zaadz offers advertisers a way of 'giving back' is a great way to get seeds to work in the real world. So advertiser dollars goes to Zaadz/Gaia community project for example and Zaadsters give seeds to the idea they'd like to grow. This would be a direct way that we, the Zaadz community ,could manifest our vision into the larger community of the world.

I love this idea, DavidC (getting confusing here with two Davids..)!

I believe that one of Gaia's long term wishes is to support local enterprises - how wonderful if these were Gaia community inspired 'enterprises' or projects …. (which, of course, align with the 'mission' of Gaia - re changing the world).

eg - - (once running costs be covered etc) - every month (or..) an advertiser's money goes towards funding a Gaia community inspired project – and we as community members not only put forward our 'projects'/('gardens') for such funding, but we as a community use our seeds to say which 'garden'  (project/enterprise) we would like to see grow at any given time. Perhaps this is where 'weight' comes in –  a person whose seeds 'weigh' more, their seeds count for more in the 'seeding which garden project' decision.

I think this is pretty much your suggestion, yes?

Love,
Sandra

Re: Seeds and Gardens

C4Chaos, and the team, thank you for the recent update of seeds description! It addressed most of the issues I brought up here originally. It's clear and understandable, and its language goes away from repeating it's a trust and reputation system. I was almost about to point out how C4 just bought all that terminology back in this pod… But on the actual description page there are only one or two mentions of it being a trust/reputation system, so it's ok. And I think the two “trust” reminders can be removed altogether.

Also, Siona has revealed how many seeds (~30,000) have been used so far, which is great, but I hope the team is developing a little counter for the main page?..

Continuing the thread:

1. Imagery language. Siona pointed out you were thinking in terms of ”resonating” with posts/authors, it sounds good but does not form a complete imagery, because “seeds” and not “vibes” are used on Zaadz. But I'll certainly try to play around with that. For now, look at the wonderful pictures on Zaadz banners: the ”flying seeds” spread by the wind. What do those seeds grow to be? And in case of “rating” content, imagine going along a street and overhearing an interesting conversation in one of the yards. You come closer and listen to the beautiful words spoken. As you leave, you take out your little sack of seeds and think: how can I use this seed to show appreciation for this conversation? How can I show others that this topic is beautiful? Beautiful… Like a flower! So you plant a flower. And then others are attracted to the most blooming topics.

2. Various hues of rating content. A single “I Like It” is limited and monochrome, working only for one “hot” page. Why limit ourselves in this way? We have a whole spectrum of colours to choose from! And remember, we are now linked to Gaia.com, and a lot of content on Zaadz is worthy of a spotlight on Gaia. I propose to use a different colour scheme for each main section of Gaia.com, and then link it to the colour of a “flower” we choose to “plant” for content and pods that we like. For example, Relationships - red (rose?), Spirituality - white/yellow (lotus?), Make a Difference - yellow (daffodil?), Environment - green (bamboo?), etc. Whenever we post a comment to a piece of content, instead of “I like it” we can have “give a flower!” with two drop-down lists of how many flowers to give and what type of flower. Note that the default option, for comments on content, would be “give_one_flower”, and that is done if we just click “post comment” ignoring the seeds system. (Any comment should generate a seed as well as use one).

3. Instead of controversal “negative” rating, an option to be available on the drop-down list for numbers of flowers given, to not give any flowers. If we just dont really like the post or blog, we can just not give it any seeds with our comments. This will keep a “sorting personal differences” type of dialogue out of the “hots”. Also, this will not only enable thematic sorting through “flower colour”, but rating sorting through the number of flowers given: the greater the person's seedcount (beacon/garden), the more seeds are available for him to give in the drop-down list. (Now there is no control over this.)


4. Folding/hiding of questionable content should be available for the authors of such content. If someone desperately needs an emotional release, he can intentionally “hide/fold” it from sensitive others, but not from the ones who don't mind reading and engaging in constructive, transformational dialogue.

5. A “total seeds given/planted” counter would be great for the Zaadz main page. If the colour-based content rating is taken on, it can show the proportion in colours.

6. Seeds used to physical charity from sponsors - (described earlier) please share your thoughts on this idea, how realistic is it at least in the long term?

7. The Beacon to be a link to at least a java pop-up with some sort of more detailed data on a personal “garden”. I'm not sure this will be effective if no “green” imagery is used though.

(What did I forget? :-) )

Re: Seeds and Gardens

:-) Zet: Make a Difference - yellow (daffodil?), Environment - green (bamboo?), etc. Whenever we post a comment to a piece of content, instead of “I like it” we can have “give a flower!” with two drop-down lists of how many flowers to give and what type of flower.

Oh, this is such a cute Idea I love it. You have almost made me let go of my attachment to being able to categorize content (eg: Challenging; inspiring; uplifting; made me think; possibly contravenes T&C of Gaia) etc. Polka dot flower for 'witty' material?? ;-)

As for: Thinking in terms of ”resonating” with posts/authors, it sounds good but does not form a complete imagery, because “seeds” and not “vibes” are used on Zaadz.

Well, maybe you can involve the quantum mechanic vibration/ frequency / wavelength approach? :-) Zet: Make a Difference - yellow (daffodil?), Environment - green (bamboo?), etc. Whenever we post a comment to a piece of content, instead of “I like it” we can have “give a flower!” with two drop-down lists of how many flowers to give and what type of flower.

Oh, this is such a cute Idea I love it. You have almost made me let go of my attachment to being able to categorize content (eg: Challenging; inspiring; uplifting; made me think; possibly contravenes T&C of Gaia) etc. Polka dot flower for 'witty' material?? ;-)

As for: Thinking in terms of ”resonating” with posts/authors, it sounds good but does not form a complete imagery, because “seeds” and not “vibes” are used on Zaadz.

Well, maybe you can involve the quantum mechanic vibration/ frequency / wavelength approach? i.e. seeds do have a 'vibe'. Maybe a 'glowing' seed for 'resonating' with a piece of content or person?


Love,
Sandra

Re: Seeds and Gardens

In the name of bringing energy to this thread, since the Bring Back the Bad Seeds one was closed ( thanks C4) - I'd like to address something that was concerning me - which was what Patrick mentioned: the seeming lack of team interaction here.

I then read Zet's post on the above thread. There is so much heart and love pouring out of it (imo) that I feel recharged and enlightened – I am reminded of what my gut tells me - the team are taking notice, all the time.

If we as individuals and as a community stop contributing our voice on threads such as these just because there isn't enough feedback from the team then I don't see the point of being here at all.

So. Back to seeds and gardens.

I'm in agreement with more moderators (gardeners) as well as tech tools such as the seed system to support my involvement here. As I said on the previous thread regarding my 'human' interaction on the pod I moderate:

I would have dearly loved the help of some 'algorithm' to point me to 'challenging' areas; I simply can't keep up with it all. I am sure this is partly what inspired the team to set the seed system up in the first place. Yes, I can get more moderators and I will - and still, I see that there is a use for technology.

The zaadz/gaia team is small compared to the numbers here.  I have 6 moderators on a 400+ member pod, plus myself.  It's not enough, so I cannot imagine what it's like for the z/g team to keep up with us all. We need whatever tools we can get to support this beautiful garden.

Love,
Sandra

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I'd like to aknowlege C4's answer. Thank you for weighing in:

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I had dropped out of the active discussion because it was getting a bit too day-dreamy for me at this time.  Very creative and thoughtful, but a bit too complex with too many assumptions.  Patrick expressed it well, pointing out that the Team had lost interest.

However, I would like to see the thread kept active for anyone who wants to keep going.  It is so important for us to be able to express our hopes and dreams, so when there is even one other person there to witness, respond and co-create, it is something to be cherished.  Whether the ideas and visions “go anywhere” in the future, I think that life is all about “the dance.”  Those interactive moments of give and take, yin and yang, in which we get to know another person, witness their thinking and dreams - that's a large part of why we're here.

The team may come and go in a thread, but this thread is also for us, and it remains beautiful and productive.

Peace,

Earon

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Thanks Earon.

I wonder whether what I'm going to write should be on a new thread — since this one does seem to be at least in hibernation.

Well – for now I'll post here. I was mentioning the suggestion of seeds having a monetary significance and going towards financially supporting local ventures. Earlier it was suggested, (hmm, by another Dave I think, but I could be wrong) that the seeds could be revenue towards charities.

I mentioned all this to a zaadz friend and she told me about Kaioo - a German-born new social network site which does something similar:  (or at least they say they do). In their case all advertising money goes to charity.  This is what they say on their home page:

kaioo is the first REAL Social Community on the internet, because kaioo is:
   
Non-profit:
All advertising money goes to charity!
Democratic:
The users decide where the money goes!
Independent:
User data will not be shared with third parties!

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Yes, this can definitely work. I wonder what the team will say about this when they're done with the visual makeover of Zeedz/Gaia… Exciting possibilities!!!