Gaia: Think Tank - Seeds and Appreciation - Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://coolmel.gaia.com — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:31:03 GMT

hi everyone,

i think some people made an excellent point about locking thread.

for the record, we're not locking it because we're closing our doors to the discussion. it's just that the thread is getting too long and takes a long time to load (we hear you Zet White :)).

so i'm locking the thread for now. feel free to continue the discussion on another thread.

thank you very much for all your feedback.

~C

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://coolmel.gaia.com — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:50:24 GMT

Zet White,

exactly! even if we (admins) don't specifically reply, many things are taken into consideration. having said that, it doesn't mean that we'll implement everything that was suggested (coz that's gonna be chaos :)).

btw, Jake did reply to this thread way back. so we haven''t ignored it.

when all things are said and done, the decision of what to implement (or what not to implement) will be coming from the us admins (and management) on what we think is best. however, the value of discussion threads like this is that we (admins) are able to reflect and consider our decisions (and make changes accordingly) instead of just imposing everything without getting feedback.

since the implementation of the Seed System, we've made some changes based on feedback we received. we changed some features, we even changed the wordings, and more improvements are coming soon. so hold on to your patience and understanding, coz we're not the type who ignore people (especially those who have constructive things to say).

in the meantime, check out my reply on another thread.

"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."

thanks!

~C

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:11:19 GMT

Alright, come on now.......what are you doing?? I mean really, what are you all doing?? Do you even go back and read your own stuff? This is just ridiculous. Look at the waste of precious time and energy to spend day after day talking about the seeds thing! I've never seen anything like this! Day after day I get this in my email because I've "joined" this overall thread, and people........peeps.......come on now.......it's a goofy little sort of fun system that appears to be absolutely meaningless. Why on earth are you all spending all of this time and getting so darn "deep" over something like this.......it's just mind boggling. Why don't you all just either play with the seeds thing or don't and move on to something that would be much less...........and dare I say it because I will..........anal........than this??

Thank you!

John

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://zetwhite.gaia.com — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:38:31 GMT

No, Patrick, I disagree with you. Many things said here are definitely taken into consideration. The wording of the seeds system is changed, and some statistics have been given to us. Siona told me in an email that the team is considering all the feedback from the thinktank about the seeds, and that many of the things said here were mirrorred during some team's discussions. I think we owe them some patience? Gaia.com has just been out and a lot of time and energy is being put into it. I think we need to ask specific questions and be more persistent and patient. Imagine yourself in the shoes of one of the admins here. Honestly, how would you feel if you are working hard to evolve and develop the site of your dream, your passion (which is what Zaadz is for them all), and someone comes up and accuses you of being a brat who couldn't care less about the users of the site? They're all human, it hurts them you know.

I'm not being a pro-admins preacher here, I just see a normal human perspective. It's hasn't even been a whole month since the thead was started, and the thread did cause changes! And it's some ten days since Jake replied here, and only a few since an amendment to the seeds desciption. And you say we are ignored? For the admins of a site in devevlopment it always takes long to reply AND make adjustments to the system in development. And in the eyes of a programmer, the best reply is in action, not words. Do you want C4 to come here and say "Hey guys, I'm taking your points into consideration while working on the code today. Love, C4."? Maybe I do too, but I fear it would make me shut up and wait for a couple of weeks till changes are implemented. And anyway, he did say just that in his own words in a parallel thread just four days ago: ~C4Chaos said (Dec.7th): "...the Seed System as it is right now is an early implementation. we'll continue to refine the system..." Moreover...

Patrick: "Don't give energy and valuable ideas..."

I think the admins are putting much more energy and thought-power into all this than most of us here. Coding, discussing, checking emails with complaints, questions, accusations, solving those issues, doing more coding, more discussions, eating at least twice a day, having some time away from the computer at least once a week... Yes, I also don't like "being ignored" when I am so inspired with my own voice. Well, after a few days of waiting I emailed Siona asking politely to check out the new thread. Next day she did, commented, and some valuable action followed. C4 gave some more info very recently in the Seeds and Gardens thread, this doesn't mean this thread is ignored, imagine his post is here instead. Because it is, for them the two topics aren't separate. So we aren't ignored.

And for God's sake it shouldn't be closed, it's my personal issue with long threads! They use bandwith to display 40+ messages that I don't need to see! And it takes time and many kilobytes to download that every time. I don't have broadband, and my only issue is with the length. If it was split into pages like lists of friends' blogs, I wouldn't mind talking here forever, if it's only the last ten posts I have to download. No offence to the discussion here, sorry if me bringing this up upset you.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:03:32 GMT

Yeah!!! I agree, we can shut the thread off....

Haven't you noticed no member of the team reacts? Nothing! It's just "go on, play till you're done!"

So are we done?

The thread should be shut off. Not because our ideas are bad! Not because our ideas are good. Not because this or that contribution is better than this other one!

it should be closed because there is no interaction between the ideas given here and the team.

The signal is clear! "no interaction...no energy given here"

Stop making fools of yourselves! Don't give energy and valuable ideas when there is noone to talk to.

Think Tank...has become a Think Well...No joke intended.

Patrick

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://monk.gaia.com — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:59:46 GMT

Grey: A good seeds system would put more of the control over community moderation in the hands of the community. If it's implemented and promoted properly, that actually sounds like fun to me.

It sounds like mob rule to me, always favoring the majority and the cliques over minorities and individuals.

Grey: Yeah, it's important to reiterate that I've always been talking about non-resonation seeds for content only, not for the actual Zaadz member.

You've been promoting the idea of negative seeds having the power to dim people's "beacons." That's not directed at content; that's directed at the person. But at any rate, you can't really separate the two. People identify with their ideas, their art, their expression, etc.

Grey: 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?

Let's wait 'till it's broke before we fix it. It's working fine now and should continue to work fine since more members will mean more moderators and more people who will step up to self-regulate.

All the best,

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://drane.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:50:03 GMT

Sandra: And yes I also feel this thread has gone on too long. I'm wondering if some fine mind can summarize the essence of this thread and start a new one which includes this essence & widens the landscape?

I'm not a big fan of the whole concept of "agree to disagree" because it seems like such an inferior solution, and "compromise" isn't exactly the word I'd use either (I like "consensus" better), but yeah, I'm ready to close this particular thread now, too.

I'd love to see the conversation just continue in the Seeds and Gardens thread (rather than starting a new one), since there seems to be a much more productive energy there and a lot less focus on "bad seeds".

With love,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://sandrajensen.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:30:22 GMT

Zet: I knew there was something I meant to say last night: Re David & Grey:

Something tells me this is the case where we'll just have to agree to disagree, and try to find a compromise.

Yes!

I think it may be useful to have ”negative” rating of content, but not authors. Even better would be the option of having “zero-seeds-given” instead of actually “negative” feedback, as I've described earlier.

Yes!

And yes I also feel this thread has gone on too long. I'm wondering if some fine mind can summarize the essence of this thread and start a new one which includes this essence & widens the landscape?

Sandra

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://drane.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:12:03 GMT

Zet White: Personally, I think it may be useful to have ”negative” rating of content, but not authors. Even better would be the option of having “zero-seeds-given” instead of actually “negative” feedback.... I can give you one seed of appreciation in your profile, and then take away one in your blog. It beats the whole point of giving thanks, because this is a quantifiable thanks that can be taken away.

Yeah, it's important to reiterate that I've always been talking about non-resonation seeds for content only, not for the actual Zaadz member.

And having "NR" seeds with zero value would already be a huge improvement over only positive seeds. At least we'd have more information to work with. But I think it's also important to realize that there could very well be cases where you'd want to send "Big Love" to someone, but then say, "But there's this post over here that I'm not resonating with." And since "Big Love" is worth 3 seeds and an NR seed for content would be worth (much?) less than one seed, it might actually make some sense to be essentially sowing a net of 2.xxx seeds.

Big Love,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://drane.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:59:23 GMT

Patrick:

This is fun!

Who is this fun for exactly? The moderators who would have to actively keep an eye on all of the members? Doesn't sound like a barrel of monkeys to me. Or the members who are being monitored by this hegemony? Big Brother is watching you....

Seriously though, I agree that a volunteer moderating team of some sort is a great idea, but a good seeds system would put more of the control over community moderation in the hands of the community. If it's implemented and promoted properly, that actually sounds like fun to me.

Patrick:

Get the informaticians to implement a better Zaadz interface.

two ways to do that:

1) let each pod be a “State” with it's own rules. They'll still have to confirm with a state rule, which has to do with legality and so on.

2) Make rules for each pod the same and elect 65 Zaadzsters at the position of “Zaadzs moderators”. They'll be above, hierarchicaly to pod moderators.

The problem with this is that it assumes all Zaadz members belong to and are active in pods. What about people who mostly blog and communicate by PM? It also seems to me to put a little too much control over pods.

Patrick:
We cannot find a good computer algorithm for now…as we don't know how to do it by ourselves…we humans. How can you program something you cannot concieve?

Sorry, but I don't follow you. What is it that we can't conceive exactly? There may be an important point here, but I'm just not seeing it.

Metta,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://drane.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:04:34 GMT

Cool. I'd missed those stats. I'd be curious to know, though, how many of those flags for review were valid concerns (i.e. in response to actual policy violations or near violations) and how many were just shadow boxing or other overreactions.

'Cause it seems to me that 137 possible policy violations in such a short period of time is actually pretty high. Has the Zaadz team even had time to check them all out? Would having "non-resonation" seeds (trying out another term here...) help people to use the policy-violation flags more responsibly?

Cheers,

~G

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://zetwhite.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:36:32 GMT

I suggest this thread be locked and we go to a new one, it's just gone too long. (I really think Zaadz should introduce "pages" system for long pods, so only 20-25 show on one page, not 125. Like it is with viewing friends' blogs.)

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://zetwhite.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:31:43 GMT

Patrick, it's not about computerised control IMHO, it's about meaningful rating of information.
To add to your calculations, in case someone missed this... Siona said here:

"So far (or as of last night (5th Dec.)) , the community as a whole has doled out a total of 29236 seeds. Of those, 29099 seeds were used to either give thanks or to bestow positive feedback, and 137 were used to flag content. (Nearly 30,000 little blessings? I get a big grin on my face just thinking of the intention each of those represents. Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you.)

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://zetwhite.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:17:14 GMT

Grey, I've just put aside a monstrous "Introducing Research Methods" textbook and came here to relax and unwind my flow of ideas, and here you are - talking about quantifiable data on people's contributions, beacons, attitudes and so on. Ahh... :)

You know, this made me think of another button to replace CE or concern: "Incomprehensible". :) No no, I'm not saying your text is, it's my mind too filled up with "research".. It's just that, sometimes I open someone's blog, or scroll down a pod, and see this long piece of text, without paragraphs and sometimes even without punctuation. Or written in an incomprehensible language, daht si miply impossiiibel ta undasanding. Or it's a non-stop poem. The problem is, it takes me twice as long to read and understand it. Thus I suggest a button "Incomprehensible" or, to make it milder, "Hard to Read", that is plainly visible to the author. I'm sure their text is enlightening in a way, but if it's hard to read... Perhaps it should lower that text's popularity, but not the author's. And it will make the author consider the opinion of his readers. And I think this should be anonymous.

You said it yourself: "right speech, skillful means...". As far as the "negative feedback" is concerned, I'm undecided. I tried to change the wording ("weeds", "concern") but whether to have this system or not - I don't know. This discussion here is full of insight, but I'm trying to think more in terms of function, practice, how it can be done. If not the "bad seeds", then what? What can work both from Grey's position and David's? Instead of this what I see so far is Grey trying to convince David who is in turn trying to convince Grey. Something tells me this is the case where we'll just have to agree to disagree, and try to find a compromise.

Siona hinted in response to the "garden imagery" that they were thinking more in terms of "resonance". For now, we only have "I like it" and "Flag for review" buttons. How about, instead of "I like it", go for a trio of "I resonate", "I DON'T resonate", and "I CAN'T resonate"? :-)

Personally, I think it may be useful to have "negative" rating of content, but not authors. Even better would be the option of having "zero-seeds-given" instead of actually "negative" feedback, as I've described earlier. It does sound stupid, especially considering the current name for positive author feedback. "Give Thanks!". What would there be instead? "Give Sh*t!"? And options of "Big loathing!", "Disgusting stuff!" and "Get a life!!" !? Because, simply, if by rating a user's blog negatively we lower his/her seedcount, how is it different to having a "Give Sh*t" option on their profile? I can give you one seed of appreciation in your profile, and then take away one in your blog. It beats the whole point of giving thanks, because this is a quantifiable thanks that can be taken away. Real thanks can't be taken away.

But this can also be debated. Everything is relative. :)

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://sandrajensen.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:56:11 GMT

<sigh> long message got chewed up by Firefox.
will try to be briefer (!)

Grey, David -- I really appreciate the two of you hanging in here with this. I feel like I'm getting somewhere! (and there have been times it felt like I was eavesdropping on a private conversation). So many great points, again, I feel resonance to both 'sides'. Perhaps they are not so far apart as they sometimes seem?

David - did Grey ever say he was 'for' "anonymous bad seeds" ? I guess he must have but somehow that isn't my impression. Personally I feel all seeds should not be anonymous. In anycase, I presume they are not to the z/g team. I do agree that sending off a 'bad' seed willy nilly doesn't seem to be useful, but I don't think this is what Grey is suggesting?

Patrick: Let's say we have 1'300 active and contributing users.

I'd love the teams input here. I'm sure they can give us an idea of the stats. I suspect zaadz might be a bit different to other online communities.

Maximize human moderatition of pod. Use Zaadzsters for free. If we say we need 1 moderator for 20 Zaadsters, that's 65 Zaadsters beeing moderators for 1'300 active users (when I say moderators, I don't say pod moderators, but more overall Zaadz moderator).

I like this idea - and if the mediation task-force moves forward I think it will support the human moderation aspect. Also - the z/g team is looking into refreshing the Ambassador group - 1300 +- of them (us) -- it was very active in the early days of zaadz, and is now underutilized.

Grey: what's wrong with having a system in place that encourages people to think a bit more about things like right speech and skillful means? I mean, assuming it's a good system that has a way of handling unfounded or isolated “attacks” on otherwise valuable content.

Big yes to this. I imagine David agrees, but not to the 'system'.

I sense the human / computer means are not mutually exclusive.

I'm a huge believer in communication - I spend 1/4 of my time on the DD pod involved with encouraging and developing 'reverent communication' - (with an eye on the possibility that a flatland of 'niceness' could be an (unwanted) result.) However, I have found that no matter what arises or how hot it is, communication always opens and resolves and expands the situation.

But my point is that as a moderator I do a lot of human engagement in the mediation arena; and so do the other moderators on the pod. However, it's not always easy to go where it's 'hot' in a timely fashion - some days there are more than 20 posts -- and presently I'm in a big house move and 2 of the mods are on holiday.

I've missed a few 'interesting' moments recently. 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 here.

I had more to say, but It's nearly midnight, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Love to all,
Sandra

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:57:22 GMT

Here's a text posted by Bill a few eons ago. might be interesting, as Michael was making some figures about active members and flagging.

http://pods.zaadz.com/systems/discussions/view/63173#71266

The summary is:

User participation often more or less follows a 90-9-1 rule:

90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don't contribute).
9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions: it can seem as if they don't have lives because they often post just minutes after whatever event they're commenting on occurs.

So to spare you the task of taking your calculator, here are the figures for Zaadz:

-130'000 users

- 117'000 lurkers and 13'000 active users

- on 13'000 active users:

- 11'700 contribute from time to time

- 1'300 participate and account for most of contributions.

Now, we also have to lower these figures as there are many ghosts profiles on Zaadz - just look at your friends list.

So the question to me, is how do you manage 1'300 active and contributing users (lower that figure, 'cause that's probably overrated and my guess is that it's half of that: 650!)

Let's say we have 1'300 active and contributing users.

My idea is to minimize the computerized controlling entitty. it's not fun! Computerized controll is what is happening everywhere (at our job, states, police and so on..) It's just not enough fun.

This is fun!

Get the informaticians to implement a better Zaadz interface.

two ways to do that:

1) let each pod be a "State" with it's own rules. They'll still have to confirm with a state rule, which has to do with legality and so on.

2) Make rules for each pod the same and elect 65 Zaadzsters at the position of "Zaadzs moderators". They'll be above, hierarchicaly to pod moderators.

We cannot find a good computer algorithm for now...as we don't know how to do it by ourselves...we humans. How can you program something you cannot concieve?

Let's have fun!

Patrick

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://drane.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:36:09 GMT

WARNING: Looooong post follows! Sorry, folks. I got kinda carried away, but I think there's some good stuff here, particularly at the end. ;-)

David: In what way is sending an anonymous bad seed “reaching out” and “encouraging them to reflect”? It's just saying, “I don't like you” or “I don't like what you said” or “I am offended.” How is that encouraing people to relate and interact?

I think I've already said all that I can say in all the different ways I can figure out to say it on this issue. I'll give it some more thought, but right now I really don't understand why you can't make an effort to take, for a moment, my perspective that I'm not talking about "bad seeds".

I mean, let's forget the idea ever started with "bad seeds", and let's even forget about the seeds system all together for a minute. How does saying to yourself "I'm feeling angry" or "I'm feeling uncomfortable" equate with saying to someone's face "I don't like you"? Or how about this: Is it better to punch someone in the face when you're angry, or go into another room and punch a pillow to get it out of your system?

Because that's really what we're talking about here. But actually it's even better, because when we go into that other room to punch a pillow, we would also find some sources of guidance on how else we can deal with the emotions we're feeling. And people who are lashing out and going to punch that pillow would at least be presented with options that might make them think twice about how they've reacted so far.

It should already be clear by now, based on the effect good seeds are having on a person's beacon right now, that one person sowing one seed does nothing to visibly change a person's icon. But let's consider a situation in which a whole bunch of people are being triggered by something someone has posted, so many people that it has had a meaningful impact on that person's icon (either actually reducing it or keeping it from growing in some significant manner). Let's also assume that the seeds system is designed to detect situations exactly like this one, which means that it comes to the attention of the admins/moderators. Now real people who, let's also assume, are able to take multiple perspectives in situations like these are looking at the situation. So what can happen?

Well, basically, one of three things can happen: the moderators feel that (1) the contributor of the content could be made more aware of how their content is affecting people; (2) the people being triggered could be made more aware of the value of the content; or perhaps the more likely (3) both the contributor of the content and the people being triggered could learn (or maybe even already have learned) something from the situation.

So what does this mean in terms of the icon? Well, in the first case, we might decide that a slowing in the growth of the person's icon is warranted because they have work to do in order to become a more responsible/sustainable contributor to the community. In the second, we might decide that it's best to reset the person's icon to where it would have been without the "challenging emotion" seeds because the moderators appreciate the value of the content in supporting a sustainable community. In the third case, maybe some intermediate adjustment could be made to the person's icon in recognition of the value of all of the various points of view. Not to mention the fact that the algorithm could be tweaked further based on this experience in order to help deal with situations like these more effectively in the future.

This is an overly simplistic scenario, but I think it might show a bit of my thinking on how human intervention could make the icons more meaningful and keep them from being a popularity contest or a means of reward or punishment.

In practice, the admins and moderators would need to run some statistics on how many of what types of seeds (across the whole spectrum) different types of content (from "hot" contributors on down to the less visible ones) might attract in order to have a better idea how to integrate "challenging emotion" seeds into the algorithm in a manner that finds the right balance between the need for their intervention and the effect unmonitored seed sowing has on a person's icon.

For example, different types of emotion could have different effects on the icon (or even no effect at all, and some forms of "challenging emotions" could even act on a person's icon and weighting in the same way as "good seeds"). Maybe challenging emotion seeds could have no effect at all (i.e. absolutely none) until a certain number of seeds (both inspirational and challenging) have been sown in order to provide some sort of statistical validity to the seeds. Maybe specific individuals with a proven track record of being good contributors to the community can have their icons made more resilient to "attack" in some way. Maybe, as I've suggested before, a person's icon can also grow simply for posting content, thereby lessening the impact of seeds and the view that the seeds "reward" or "punish" a person for contributing to the community.

There's a virtually infinite number of ways in which the algorithm might be tweaked in order to optimize the need for human intervention in the moderating process and to keep the icon from being seen as either a popularity contest or a system of reward and punishment. But if it turns out that that's not possible for whatever reason (even simply human nature), the icon can always be removed and the underlying weighting it represents can only be used by the seed system, the admins and moderators. That wouldn't affect how the seeds system would be able to help us find certain types of content throughout the community.

But let's go back to what's wrong with a seeds system with just "good seeds". It's already a step in the right direction, because without this system, all we can tell from the statistics is how much traffic and generic attention content is generating. With the seeds we have now, we know that certain content generates traffic and that a certain number of people viewing the content also "like" it, but we have no idea why they like it. And we still know virtually nothing about the people who are viewing the content but not sowing any seeds. Are they not sowing seeds because they just don't feel like it or don't think to do it? Are they not sowing seeds because they actually don't like the content or are triggered by it? And people who are triggered by content are essentially left to their own devices in dealing with those emotions.

Also, the way the system is implemented now, it very much is a popularity contest, since your beacon only brightens if you're attracting a lot of seed sowing. So it seems to me that that promotes pluralism (and not necessarily healthy pluralism) much more than a more "complete" seeds system would. And with such a limited range of qualitative information being put into the system, there really isn't a lot that can be done to make the beacon anything but a popularity contest.

And no seeds system at all? Well, OK, there are still things that can be done to help people find content, but there's no way, without a whole lot of user intervention, for the new Gaia system to automatically categorize high-quality content as much as it's going to want to do.

There are also other things that can be done to help people to deal with conflict and with being triggered by content, but unless someone actually reports a situation to a moderator or admin (or if a moderator or admin just happens to notice a situation as it's developing), we have no way of reaching out to specific individuals when they are being faced with specific challenging situations.

So given all these potential upsides to a well-designed seeds system, can't we, if even for the sake of argument, assume for a minute that it can be made to work and talk about ideas for making it work, rather than debating purely whether it can or can't work? After all, a system is already in place, so let's talk about making it better, rather than talking about doing away with it. If after a process of discussion, trial and error, we still find that it does more harm than good, then OK, there's still time to get rid of it.

David: it would inhibit people from expressing themselves freely because people wouldn't want their reputations dimmed.

I don't know. To me, free speech is overrated. ;-)

Seriously though, what's wrong with having a system in place that encourages people to think a bit more about things like right speech and skillful means? I mean, assuming it's a good system that has a way of handling unfounded or isolated "attacks" on otherwise valuable content. If a person is blogging to the entire Zaadz community, then that person should give some thought to how exactly is best to address that community. In so doing, they should still be able to say what they want to say (free speech), but they'll say it in a way that will get across to the target audience much more effectively. And if you're always coming out all guns blazing, provoking your audience with every post, then it seems to me it's you, the blogger, who's creating more bad karma than the people reacting to you.

But let's say you only intend for your blog to be read by a specific subset of the Zaadz community. If you're only addressing, say, the Integral community within Zaadz, and if you go about managing your blog appropriately, then most likely the very nature of your blog will limit your readership pretty much to that community or people with a propensity to become a part of that community. Sure, you might get a few Integral-bashers come around and lash out at you now and then, but most people probably won't attract enough of that kind of attention for that to make any difference in their icon or beacon (or whatever).

But if the things you write about, and the way you write about them, do attract a lot of attention from a wider audience, then it only makes sense to either try and reach that wider audience more effectively or adjust your blog so that you limit your audience to those you really want to target. (And btw, if you're intentionally limiting your target audience in this way, you're not going to give a hoot about how highly ranked your content is within the broader Zaadz community or how bright your beacon is.)

Sure, there are exceptions to this, like if you get to be as famous as someone like Ken Wilber (who targets a specific audience with skill but attracts a lot of broader attention anyway), then there's not a lot you can do as a content writer to prevent attacks. But in cases like those, the admins or moderators can step in to protect you from them. Kinda like how all the Zaadz team's beacons are already as bright as they're gonna get and you can't sow seeds for them. The same kind of thing could be done, maybe to varying degrees, for particular people that merit it.

Hmmm... for someone who said at the beginning that he thought he'd said all he could say, I sure ended up writing a lot. ;-)

All the best,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://monk.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:29:02 GMT

Grey: I agree that shadow is an important issue to be dealt with by an individual, and the seeds system would provide a way to reach out to people and encourage them to reflect on things like these. I'm just saying that occasional individual expressions of shadow through seeds won't do anything to affect another person's icon.

In what way is sending an anonymous bad seed "reaching out" and "encouraging them to reflect"? It's just saying, "I don't like you" or "I don't like what you said" or "I am offended." How is that encouraing people to relate and interact?

What's really less than integral is the idea that these anonymous negative seeds would affect the brightness of a person's icon and reputation. From an integral perspective, that's totally indefensible, and would clearly be a reflection of pluralistic thinking. It clearly doesn't recognize that the bad seed givers themselves would be at fault half the time, at least, and that it could be a worldview conflict, a type conflict, shadow, scapegoating, etc. Now if you made it so it was the bad-seed giver's icon that dimmed every time he sent out a bad seed, the idea might start making some sense.

David: Why promote healthy pluralism, first of all, if pluralism is already the COG?

Grey: Because healthy pluralism is better than pluralitis.

Of course it is. Who would dispute that? But that doesn't answer my question. Why would you want to promote the value sphere that's already the center of gravity of the community rather than promote the next emergence? Sure we want to promote healthy pluralism, but the way to do that is integral, not more pluralism. More pluralism will only make pluralitis worse. Integral is what cures it.

Grey: As things stand now, when someone gets really angry at another member, they essentially have three options. . . . With the seeds system I'd like to see, they'd have a fourth option: consider their feelings more carefully as they're selecting the seed that feels right, which would then, ideally based on the specific seed they choose, give them some links to sources of guidance on how to deal with that emotion (and the situation) in a more healthy manner for all concerned.

Well, that's great, a little anger therapy, but you're also saying that someone else should bear the weight of that anger, which likely as not is something the bad seed giver should own himself. Not only that, you have been saying that the person on the recieving end of the anonymous bad seed should pay a price--with a dimmer icon, a lesser reputation--and from an integral perspective that is downright bizzare. Bizzarre because it could be a worldview disagreement, a clique or bullying or scapegoating dynamic, shadow, emotional troubles. Really amazing that you think one person's anger about something should translate into the dimming of the other person's icon and reputation just because someone felt like sending a bad seed.

Grey: Anger is an emotion you learn to deal with in healthier ways, not something you can all of a sudden leave behind when you achieve a more integral worldview.

Right, but you're saying people should deal with their anger by sending out a negative seed to someone. That is anything but evolved or enlightened. You deal with anger in various ways--discussing it, talking to someone about it, taking a homeopathic remedy, doing some yoga, getting some exerise, letting it be, transmuting it into clarity (Buddhist) etc.--but sending an anonymous negative seed to someone is not one of them, not from any kind of an integral or superintegral perspective. Sending out an anonymous bad seed to someone as a method of dealing with anger would only create karma, to the say the least. It would not promote anyone's development, and it would inhibit people from expressing themselves freely because people wouldn't want their reputations dimmed. Really, if the politically correct police were to dream up a system, they would dream up just the one you're envisioning.

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://drane.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:15:29 GMT

David: If people are shy and concerned, they should be encouraged to speak to a moderator, or a friend who will express it for them, or a therapist, or some combination of these things. We wouldn't be helping them by encouraging such shyness.

Maybe you missed it, David, but I've said (more than once) that when someone sows a "challenging emotion" seed, they could be encouraged, as part of the confirmation process, to do all sorts of things in addition to sowing a seed. So rather than a less outspoken person just staying in the background unseen by anyone and never expressing their views in any way, the seeds system would provide a way of reaching out to these people and encouraging them to do more than just lurking.

David: I think shadow is a pretty substantial problem, and an anonymous negative-seed function would not help to bring shadow to light. It would keep it in the darkness.

Again, no. See above. I agree that shadow is an important issue to be dealt with by an individual, and the seeds system would provide a way to reach out to people and encourage them to reflect on things like these. I'm just saying that occasional individual expressions of shadow through seeds won't do anything to affect another person's icon.

David: Why promote healthy pluralism, first of all, if pluralism is already the COG?

Because healthy pluralism is better than pluralitis. You can't just jump from rational materialism to an integrated worldview, and it's much more likely that someone will make the transition to an integrated worldview from healthy pluralism than from pluralitis. Baby steps....

David: It's looking like you're saying all these emotions are worthy of expression. This is quite the opposite of the I-I Road Rules, which has us transmuting these base impulses into wisdom and care.

No, I'm saying it's important to pay attention to them and give them careful consideration. As things stand now, when someone gets really angry at another member, they essentially have three options: vent their anger on the person they see as being the cause of that anger; shut up and stew; or work through it on their own and deal with the feelings more responsibly (which many, if not most, people probably won't manage to do). With the seeds system I'd like to see, they'd have a fourth option: consider their feelings more carefully as they're selecting the seed that feels right, which would then, ideally based on the specific seed they choose, give them some links to sources of guidance on how to deal with that emotion (and the situation) in a more healthy manner for all concerned.

Ken Wilber (quoted by David): “Transcend can mean negate. In other words, when you transcend something, you're leaving something behind; you're excluding something in a certain sense.”

Of course, but anger isn't something you can negate. It's not like belief in a mythic God with a long white beard living in the clouds. That's something you leave behind as you develop more evolved ways of understanding God (by whatever name you prefer to use). Anger is an emotion you learn to deal with in healthier ways, not something you can all of a sudden leave behind when you achieve a more integral worldview.

David: [Negative seeds] would just make it more difficult for people to express these emotions you say are important and to say something that others disagree with, that might assert some truth, that might marginalize some other perspective, which integral will always do.

Could you explain this a little bit more, David? It sounds like you're saying that people should be encouraged to express their anger in order to marginalize some other perspective, but surely I'm misunderstanding you (also because in the paragraph before this you seem to be suggesting that anger should be repressed to a certain extent). Some of the things you say also make it sound like you're trying to marginalize pluralism rather than help people transcend and include it.

You can't force someone to evolve by cramming an integral worldview down their throats. You can only set a good example and clear the way as much as possible (and set up the occasional unobtrusive signpost along the way) for them to grow on their own, while allowing them to express themselves in the healthiest way possible for where they're currently at. It seems to me that "challenging emotion" seeds are an opportunity to do just that.

Metta,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

http://monk.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:18:20 GMT

Michael: I have thought and thought and thought about this and I could not agree with you more. I see any form of institionalized "negative" or otherwise niggling and anonymous "feedback" as retrograde and problematic. Who, after all is going to review all this button-stabbing?

Right, it will just inhibit free speech and novelty. It's not in the interests of evolution but the status quo.

Michael: What process, I ask, will handle this potential gripe fest?

Yes, it will just encourage a big gripe fest, which isn't good in and of itself, but it would also put more of a burden on the zaadz team, not less of a burden. Leave it to people to work it out among themselves, as they have been doing, and turn to pod moderators if need be.

Grey: The people who are shier about that sort of thing will . . . have an anonymous way of expressing their concern.

If people are shy and concerned, they should be encouraged to speak to a moderator, or a friend who will express it for them, or a therapist, or some combination of these things. We wouldn't be helping them by encouraging such shyness. If they are so shy, they can have an anonymous profile. What an anonymous negative-seed function would do--and "concern" is just a euphemism for bad seed, or would be for many people--is allow people to express all sorts of base emotions and not be responsible for them. It would subject posters to these base emotions--anger, fear, dislike, jealousy--impulses people known better than to post in a thread and don't want to attach their name to.

Grey: Occasional shadow boxing shouldn't really affect anyone enough to have to worry about it most of the time. Especially if the shadow boxers are being reminded each time they sow a concern seed that there are other ways of dealing with the situation, as well.

I think shadow is a pretty substantial problem, and an anonymous negative-seed function would not help to bring shadow to light. It would keep it in the darkness. If people post their feelings and "concerns," then it can be discussed, and a person can seem themselves differently. It seems to me that some people must be looking for an outlet with these negative seeds--they want to sit back in anonymity and fire off these negative seeds as if it will somehow relieve their suffering.

Grey: Anyway, what I see a well-designed seeds system as being able to do (not entirely on its own, but with the guidance of real people) is to promote healthy pluralism first of all.

I think this goes to the root of the disagreement. Why promote healthy pluralism, first of all, if pluralism is already the COG?

We need to make the place friendly for what's coming next, for integral, and giving people a concern button is just going to promote political correctness and flatland. In pluralism, according to Suzanne-Cook Greuter: "Truth can never be found. There is no place to stand or judge from. . . . Postmodern individuals claim with absolute certainty that there is no position from which to judge anything. They do not recognize the inherent self-contradiction of this stance which values or privilidges this idea over all others, which of course is a form of judgement and hierarchical ordering of value."

So, according to pluralism, it's not okay to assert that any idea is better than any other idea, and when someone does suggest some perspective is higher than another, they can not only get "concerned" but downright hostile and angry--the shadow side to that pluralistic sensitivity. Just look at all the garbage they throw at Ken Wilber. They would just go to town with these concern/negative-seed buttons. It's what they've always dreamed of. And integral, which by its very nature asserts value hierarchies, would be on the recieving end.

Pluralism is all over the place: it dominates academia; it dominates popular culture, and it already dominates zaadz. What we need now is integral and a system that will be favorable ground for it. These concern buttons would be nothing but a big boon for pluralism.

Grey: It seems to me the potential for the seeds system is huge, but only if we're willing to also include the less "desirable" emotions that content can bring up in us, not just the warm and fuzzies. Think of sowing seeds not as punishing or rewarding the "sowee", but as a way of modeling the feelings of the sower.

It's looking like you're saying all these emotions are worthy of expression. This is quite the opposite of the I-I Road Rules, which has us transmuting these base impulses into wisdom and care. It's not evolutionary to want to include everything people are feeling. A little anger and such should be tolerated, but I don't think we want to make zaadz a place for everything everyone is feeling. Ken Wilber: "Trancend can mean negate. In other words, when you transcend something, you're leaving something behind; you're excluding something in a certain sense." (From this discussion.)

So by all means, let's encourage people to express themselves, even if it gets a little messy at times, but openly. Negative seeds, particularly if anonymous, would inhibit free expression, not encourage it. They would just make it more difficult for people to express these emotions you say are important and to say something that others disagree with, that might assert some truth, that might marginalize some other perspective, which integral will always do.

Integral will sometimes denounce an idea as being downright regressive, but that's sure to get the pluralists all upset. Integral by it's very nature is going to piss off all the monoperspective worldviews from time to time, and when they get frustrated they'll just start firing off bad sees. Have you heard of these free-speech zones on some pluralistic campuses? On these campuses, you are not allowed to discuss anything controversial except in designated areas, free-speech zones. If we institute these negative seeds, we're going to need a free-speech zone here on zaadz where we can actually discuss things and be ourselves.

~David