The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~ David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

Jeremiah

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Jeremiah: I fully agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope you guys will put some water in your wine!

Patrick

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

It's curious to me. :)

Better form of moderation

Hi, Siona,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just like here.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Siona,

x

x

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

And that's how it will go. 

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Jeremiah,

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

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

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

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

carry on with the discussion.

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

JEREMIAH ….mind the glass house you live in…

Would Hitler engage in the conversation that has started here…

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

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

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

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

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

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

~definitive

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

~M

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Touche. :)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

best blessings,

Jordan

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Awesome, Jordan - just quick hits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again for the excellent and thoughtful letter!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Jordan!

Nice. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Thank you, WhiteWolf.

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

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

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

And I'm praying with you.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Ahhhh, me too…

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Sprite!

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

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

Siona

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

To growth!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

rapunzel,

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

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

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

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

to everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks for all your feedback and understanding.

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

~David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

David?

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

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

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

I think we should give it a shot, though.

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

David,

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

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

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

REMINDER: Be mindful of Internet scams

HOW TO: Report Spam Messages

Spam Alert: Be Mindful of the Messages You Receive

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

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

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Thank you!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

That's awesome, Jack!  Beautiful.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Jack,

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

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

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

and thanks for your feeback :)

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Guru Jack- Enlightened Bastard

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

~C

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

~David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, do we play?

Respectfully,
Dave

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

Blessed IS,
jeremiah

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

OM Bastet.

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Right!

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

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

I've gotten really behind on my work!

David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

rapunzel? I could hug you. Thanks. :)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gabriele

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

Liz

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Gabriele?

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Mascha…

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Listen to the people's voices.

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

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

Bottomline: What matters most?

Is it money?

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

Can I afford not to be ruthlessly honest with myself?

No.


My 0.2 cents with a whole lotta love,

m

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Gabriele, I just wanted to reply to this:

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Liz, that's brilliant.

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

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

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

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

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

Hugs,
~M

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hey Siona and all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not gonna argue with the garden-keepers ;-)

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Jamie

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

Made a dent in my own admitted paranoic predictions……

Love to all, OM Bastet

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Amit, Rapunzel, O.M. Bastet,

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Personally, I could care less if someone gives me a virtual seed of whatever variety. It really isn't going to impact my day one way or another. But the thing is, the state of the community does impact me. I'm here for the people, to learn from them, to be inspired by them, and to connect with them. To hear all the ideas which includes the ones I don't agree with. Especially the ones I don't agree with, because it's often those ideas that push me to either expand my own thinking, alters my ideas or else affirms my own beliefs. I don't want anything that will make people feel judged, feel they need to censor their expression, or begin to create a culture where ideas begin to be judged for their popularity. You only have to read one of the many pod discussions springing up all over zaadz to recognize that there are people who feel that all of that is happening. If even a small group of people leave or stop sharing, then I think we've lost something important as a community. There is a big difference between moderating and judging!!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hello All,

I sincerely appreciate all this sharing.  There is a a lot of wisdom flowing and it's wonderful to have all this community feedback.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I too have mixed feelings on this latest improvement, and after reading the current threads on this issue.. the mistake that stands out in my mind most is the naming conventions that were chosen… & perhaps the method of delivery as i've read in some fine posts here. 

1) The naming concept has thrown a huge bug into what you all are attempting to do. The”trust system”, good seeds & bad seeds. Honestly, imo that was the first part that set the tone.  The naming convention.    (a big ugly red flag) - seems like axis of evil terminology??  ya know?

To call someone or something said as a bad seed leads to all kinds of feelings among us.   Many of these issues we see plagueing society as it stands right now. hence why we all feel the need to change the world?!!!  I know i'm a bad seed (tongue in cheek). at least in conservative fundamentalist viewpoints, because i'm a liberal athiest. Being an athiest i have remained silent my whole life, is this what your attempt is?   silencing those who dont fit with the norm of the site?  reallY?  the pain imposed on us by others judgement whichever level of the spectrums we fall - judgement is painful.. hence many of us are here for changing the world to learn to become nonjudgementality & accepting & figuring out how the world can learn to respect, tolerate, listen to & love one another instead of hate.  From what i'm reading of peoples reactions, i'm not alone in this thought.  Childhood & society brought about alot of 'conform' issues.  Finger pointing etc & most of us here fall outside the norm of society - we think.  So was this naming convention the best possible concept you wished to bestow upon us zaadsters?  Does this help or does this stiffle our growth more?  i guess time will tell.   I'm just not sure you all realize what division you have created with calling this a trust system, and is the majority right?  is someones content which or who recieves more bad seeds really bad?  or were they just being creative with their thoughts?  isn't what we really are attempting to do here to inspire growth? Or do we have a preset agenda to make everyone fluffy happy?  if we've already decided that the only inspiration is fluffly nice stuff, i'm not sure its worth growing.  I like some of the dissenting POV's, i like being able to determine for myself how i feel about an issue.   When i get to a posting and its just too damn nice & conforming, without any thought put into it, it feels just like mushy high-fives.  I like to think & thats why i'm here.  

2)  The glowing light system on contributions seems to not consider those of us who may be quiet because we are in a reflective period? or other periods in our life.  Is this a quality?  are some people growing yet not glowing brightly & should they be marked?!!  do those who are contributing more - contribute quality?   Or is it just fluffy hi-fives?  Are there some of us right now going through issues of being too afraid to speak out, will this improve it?  rating your level of contributions?

After having said all that……….. i would like to point out, i like the “i like it” option.. and i think it is positive towards pointing out an interesting discussion or POV.   Perhaps if it was used more as a tool on our profiles.. like a 'favorite' or 'interesting' discussion we found.  There have been times in my blog when i wished to share or point my friends to an interesting blog or pod post, i would link to it & say check this out.  Perhaps if we used this as a tool linking what kind of discussions we found interesting… vs liking or disliking.   Even a rating of star seeds?   Although a star system only reflects the majority of types of peoples likes.  

I also dont mind 'flagging' something as distasteful…… or offensive…. but just because something is offensive doesn't mean its not quality… there are differing levels of what each of us feel is distasteful.   I've got some issues with people pointing to the moderator police & asking for you all to look at someones issues for example.    what value to me is there in following what the majority has decided if it doesn't resonate with me?   YET if people who knew me and my viewpoints were able to see MY ratings of what i found interesting… seems more fitting.   Kinda like following the movie critics….. and considering their bias… how many times are they just flat out wrong about quality?  

When i add a friend & i find later that i do not  enjoy reading their contributions, i usually quietly delete them from my friend list so as not to necessarily see their POV.  But i do it quietly so as not to damage them.  Perhaps we could chose to hide their content, but be able to toggle it on & off at will incase it is needed to follow the flow of a conversation. 

I became somewhat silent with my thoughts here, because many months ago, my words helped contribute to someone leaving zaadz… i have gone through alot of angst internally because of this, i know it wasn't really what i did, but i have begun to realize the power of words, my words.  perhaps this is why i have stiffled myself and my thoughts here.  i have been reflecting, yet still remaining here to learn until i'm ready to put myself out there again.   What do you think a rating system can do to others, if it becomes used to damage also?   We should be looking for ways to work together, not do kudos & high fives?… i hope this helps.  There has been alot of great posts here & i just felt the need to add mine.   This is an important issue, i am willing to see where it goes, but if it becomes ugly or onesided without allowing for tolerance of others… i will also look for movement.  The zaadz team has been very good with most of the forward momentum, i just hope they take some time to reflect on what everyone here has said, and why it seems to have struck such a cord.  :) 

I'm open to concepts & not totally against something formulated here, but as its been named & the reasons behind some of it, i am concerned where it will end up.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I too have mixed feelings on this latest improvement, and after reading the current threads on this issue.. the mistake that stands out in my mind most is the naming conventions that were chosen… & perhaps the method of delivery as i've read in some fine posts here. 

1) The naming concept has thrown a huge bug into what you all are attempting to do. The”trust system”, good seeds & bad seeds. Honestly, imo that was the first part that set the tone.  The naming convention.    (a big ugly red flag) - seems like axis of evil terminology??  ya know?

To call someone or something said as a bad seed leads to all kinds of feelings among us.   Many of these issues we see plagueing society as it stands right now. hence why we all feel the need to change the world?!!!  I know i'm a bad seed (tongue in cheek). at least in conservative fundamentalist viewpoints, because i'm a liberal athiest. Being an athiest i have remained silent my whole life, is this what your attempt is?   silencing those who dont fit with the norm of the site?  reallY?  the pain imposed on us by others judgement whichever level of the spectrums we fall - judgement is painful.. hence many of us are here for changing the world to learn to become nonjudgementality & accepting & figuring out how the world can learn to respect, tolerate, listen to & love one another instead of hate.  From what i'm reading of peoples reactions, i'm not alone in this thought.  Childhood & society brought about alot of 'conform' issues.  Finger pointing etc & most of us here fall outside the norm of society - we think.  So was this naming convention the best possible concept you wished to bestow upon us zaadsters?  Does this help or does this stiffle our growth more?  i guess time will tell.   I'm just not sure you all realize what division you have created with calling this a trust system, and is the majority right?  is someones content which or who recieves more bad seeds really bad?  or were they just being creative with their thoughts?  isn't what we really are attempting to do here to inspire growth? Or do we have a preset agenda to make everyone fluffy happy?  if we've already decided that the only inspiration is fluffly nice stuff, i'm not sure its worth growing.  I like some of the dissenting POV's, i like being able to determine for myself how i feel about an issue.   When i get to a posting and its just too damn nice & conforming, without any thought put into it, it feels just like mushy high-fives.  I like to think & thats why i'm here.  

2)  The glowing light system on contributions seems to not consider those of us who may be quiet because we are in a reflective period? or other periods in our life.  Is this a quality?  are some people growing yet not glowing brightly & should they be marked?!!  do those who are contributing more - contribute quality?   Or is it just fluffy hi-fives?  Are there some of us right now going through issues of being too afraid to speak out, will this improve it?  rating your level of contributions?

After having said all that……….. i would like to point out, i like the “i like it” option.. and i think it is positive towards pointing out an interesting discussion or POV.   Perhaps if it was used more as a tool on our profiles.. like a 'favorite' or 'interesting' discussion we found.  There have been times in my blog when i wished to share or point my friends to an interesting blog or pod post, i would link to it & say check this out.  Perhaps if we used this as a tool linking what kind of discussions we found interesting… vs liking or disliking.   Even a rating of star seeds?   Although a star system only reflects the majority of types of peoples likes.  

I also dont mind 'flagging' something as distasteful…… or offensive…. but just because something is offensive doesn't mean its not quality… there are differing levels of what each of us feel is distasteful.   I've got some issues with people pointing to the moderator police & asking for you all to look at someones issues for example.    what value to me is there in following what the majority has decided if it doesn't resonate with me?   YET if people who knew me and my viewpoints were able to see MY ratings of what i found interesting… seems more fitting.   Kinda like following the movie critics….. and considering their bias… how many times are they just flat out wrong about quality?  

When i add a friend & i find later that i do not  enjoy reading their contributions, i usually quietly delete them from my friend list so as not to necessarily see their POV.  But i do it quietly so as not to damage them.  Perhaps we could chose to hide their content, but be able to toggle it on & off at will incase it is needed to follow the flow of a conversation. 

I became somewhat silent with my thoughts here, because many months ago, my words helped contribute to someone leaving zaadz… i have gone through alot of angst internally because of this, i know it wasn't really what i did, but i have begun to realize the power of words, my words.  perhaps this is why i have stiffled myself and my thoughts here.  i have been reflecting, yet still remaining here to learn until i'm ready to put myself out there again.   What do you think a rating system can do to others, if it becomes used to damage also?   We should be looking for ways to work together, not do kudos & high fives?… i hope this helps.  There has been alot of great posts here & i just felt the need to add mine.   This is an important issue, i am willing to see where it goes, but if it becomes ugly or onesided without allowing for tolerance of others… i will also look for movement.  The zaadz team has been very good with most of the forward momentum, i just hope they take some time to reflect on what everyone here has said, and why it seems to have struck such a cord.  :) 

I'm open to concepts & not totally against something formulated here, but as its been named & the reasons behind some of it, i am concerned where it will end up.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I have been reading many things and quite unfortuneately absorbing what feels to me like negativity.  The energy surrounding it all felt immediately harsh and yuck.  And it is growing and spreading like a virus.  But hey that is my opinion…does having it get me a bad seed?  (that was humor for those who do not know me enough to know)

I haven't seen anyone speaking of GROUP NORMING :D

Is that really what this place is about underneath it all?

I have noted of late many posts by what seems to be someone who at least holds himself in high esteem. He is very directive and fatherly.  Does not like when I think for myself.  When I post.  I like to make people think.  To see aspects of things perhaps they had not considered.  Some who do not know that about me, and could not make that out by my sentance semantics could just sit on me if they pleased.  I suppose anyone could do that now, but to deprive others of forming their own judgments or opinions of each post as they so please without influence.  It just seems wrong to me.  If there had been a Zaadz with a good seed bad seed plan, and a pod for flatlanders…i bet perhaps the world would still be flat instead of round.  Many times a dissenting view has to be shouted loudly from the treetops to overcome that perhaps incorrect group norm. 

I liked Zaadz for the way members have been able for the most part to see and view and different thought pattern in a healthy way.  I hope it does not slide to a place where those with  “rank” get to decide how I may express myself.

Perhaps rather than to defend or to offend.
I would best to do and ask…may the effects of all past mistakes and ripples from such be corrected…an peace belong to all of you and you.

elisa

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

i have to say that i'm a shadow boxer and expect to get shit on plenty by this new system…
but oh well i mean there is no substantial consequence to haveing a bad reputation right?

so like anything in life there is alittle duality to this move…pluses and minuses…

- on the one hand seeds can be a vehicle for judgement…. you are right or wrong… its a binary… simplistic…and limited way to look at the world.

-it can also be a vehicle for opinions… i agree or disagree so i'll either give u positive or negative seeds…  again limited way of life because it's not asking when and where is this accurate or effective?

+But it can also elevate exceptional people so everyone can benifit from them. Fame- although cantains an element of vanity- can also make us pay attention to particularly radiant people like Tom Cruise…well maybe kate blanchette would be a bttr example.

+and it can also serve as a warning to people who might be taken advantage of by predatory behavior.

a pickle indeed… lets try it out and see how it tastes…  


and while we are at it why do we have to be all PC and sterile about this? “seed” awe lets all stand in a circle and hug!!! grow some fukin balls hippies and say what this really is…honesty is refreshing…  it should either be a high five or a middle finger… can we opt for that?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Any focus on negativity will manifest more of the same.  I am not certain I like the positive seeds very much better… it sounds much in the realm of possible Ego?  I have visions of a schoolyard running through my head for some reason.   So for myself I am not going to give my attention to the new system at all. 

I have found so many positive things here at zaadz, and met so many large, spiritual, and wonderful people who Are changing the world each in their own way, and have indeed made an impact on mine.  So I think I will focus on these things and create my own seeds, just as I have since I first joined zaadz.

Blessings friends,
Di

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Even though I haven't read any of the posts in this thread… well hardly any… well someone read me the funny ones.

You've all been bad seeded.  Dissent is never a good thing, and I think it in poor taste to question any decisions made by those in authority.  The system, the Baadz system and the world system in general, has been established to ensure the lowest common denominator existence for all those not in the upper elite.  The upper elite feel a great responsibility to maintain order and control to ensure they can reap the most profits while being completely free from responsibility for anything that might offended the weakest among us.

Don't you know that great change is always affected by censorship and following the will of the masses, or at least the apparent will of the masses.  I for one feel confident and secure knowing that our new seed system will be completely free from abuse.  No one on the inside would ever dare change a few database values to get rid of the bad, for business, seeds.  I assure you everything will be on the up and up and only the majority vote will be heard here.

Look at all the great countries.  They either rely on the illusion of elections or censorship.  Baadz has to be moving in the right direction  since we are now incorporating both.  I think you all should rethink your positions and count yourselves lucky that indeterminate prison stays are not part of the new system.  If you get bad seed gagged, at worst you'll be left at home with no outlet to the free world with all your typing fingers still intact.

For those of you who still have doubts, I might suggest the following guidelines for all future posts and blogs.  This will ensure that you offend the least amount of people and have the highest probability of staying off the “black list”.

#1 Don't mention the world ham or any pork products for that matter.  The largest majority on earth believe this is the devils meat.

#2 Adopt the “don't ask don't tell” policy in regards to all gender issues.  I believe the male/female designation on the profiles should also be removed as this promotes gender inequality.

#3 Don't post any pictures of yourself or your family.  Because A) people will be able to figure out your gender, and possibly your sexual preference, and B) people will then know what race and nationality you are.  These are both very dangerous traits to reveal publicly as there is always someone who's offended by one of them.

#4 Don't join any pods that do not agree 100% with your position.

#5 Do not make any posts that disagree with anyone.

#6 Refrain from making posts with words that people find offensive such as, <censored>, <censored>, <censored>, <censored>, <censored>, <censored>, and hot pants.  These are always guaranteed to put you on shaky grounds, and can easily be avoided by expressing yourself in a more totalitarianly approved way.

#7 Do not make up new words.  This almost always indicates to people that you are one who colors outside the lines, and harbors undesirable personal grooming habits.

#8 Routinely click on the advertisements to the right.  Although not public knowledge, you will also be rated upon how often you click on and purchase from the sponsors of Baadz.  This is the business of saving the world after all, and we're looking for those making the most approved contribution.

#9 Do not associate with Enlightened Bastards.  They're evil.

#10 Start a new pod for the perpetual defining and refining of this list of rules, return frequently, and adhere closely.


Andrew Wilcox - Welcoming Our New Alien Overlords.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hi Zaadz ‘seeds implementers'.  How very courageous of you all to continue to speak your truth.  I guess from some zaadzters perspectives you guys appear to be setting up a system of judgement, but imo I understand that you are not fighting against anybody or anything.  I feel you have been misunderstood, and maybe, just maybe a small mistake has been made, with the way this has been introduced, worded, explained etc…  But so what, ‘mistakes simply require correction, not punishment!'

I'm hearing a lot of dialogue based on fear surrounding the new seed/trust system.  It appears people are afraid, very much afraid of something new.

Firstly let's not forget we are all truth & love (or whatever words are needed to define our essence) ~ a problem exists if we become shrouded by ‘mind fear'.

So the BIG FAT QUESTION IS “What's to fear right here & now?”

Nobody here is oppressed inside a virtual Zaadz prison?  No one has (or never will be) whipped, put into solitary confinement or even be-headed!

After all Zaadz is totally about growth & enlightenment! And an enlightened person cannot be enslaved, it's too difficult and an enlightened person cannot be imprisoned…

Every new idea is bound to be a little difficult to absorb, to become an upsetting force.  Some don't want to be disturbed, even though they may be in fear; they are in fear and they are accustomed to their fear.  And anybody who is not in fear looks like a loving & joyful, seed spreading ‘green' stranger :) lol

I guess for some, Zaadz is starting to look like the greatest stranger in the world, but remember if you are viewing it this way then that's what will appear on your screen, we only see what we project.

Love, hugs & lots of yummy seeds covered in chocolate xxx Angel

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I'm not comfortable with this either …

an example:

Suddenly I felt that what I blogged was to be judged by popularity –  gave away my seeds and that was it … I suddenly felt compelled to blog and I don't come here for that … so I included a piece that I posted on Diving Deeper to gain more seeds  so I could give them away again … I come here for Diving Deeper … I gave the seeds away again (and I didn't  have enough to give away) and was somehow led to the conclusion that I need to do something in order to be an active part of Zaadz  … not a good (god) feeling to me.

I was seriously pissed off that when I chose to comment on the pod it was the day before the team  launched it … it took me over 4 hours to do all that commenting … I'm here on the pod cos I want to be, and not to do with someone else's pov … ie people who don't have a membership … read all you want that's fine by me :) … if you don't want to read then that's ok by me  too …

Somehow the seeds appear when I've now commented on something … so I'm an active part of this pod and that somehow makes me a reputation? … in my world, a reputation is not such a good thing LOL

That means my reputation will grow because of what I do in the pod, but personally, I don't agree with lots of stuff on Zaadz … won't ever give them a bad seed though … seen lot's of flaming etc and that dismays me cos I thought this place was beyond that and one of the reasons I joined … argument is a good thing though (even though it's a mind construct, for all the junkies out there) … but hey, be nice to each other … if most of the flamers were in a room with someone they wouldn't think to be so rude … cos they'd be inviting a punch on the nose I think … but the internet allows people to do almost  (and)  anything.

Seems like a popularity contest to me more than anything, and I'd prefer that the new and hot post were as they were.

Is there somewhere where the  Zaadz Team decided to consult or did they just decide
to do it  before consulting the community?… I'm mostly convinced that it's to do with censorship in the guise of doing good … see the comment on the new way of doing things here on Zaadz … ie the comments about  the Trust System.

Censorship is not a good idea full stop.

I'm wondering if the team might consult the community before they make changes and feel the temperature of the water (pods) first because it would save a whole lot of time and energy and no doubt funds if the feelings are not favourable … or is this beyond the communities control despite feedback.

I'm also wondering what would happen if all those who felt so strongly were moved to deposit bad seeds in the Teams profiles … I know you guys are protected from such a revolution because you're all special :–)

My point is that any group could get together and deposit what they want on any person in particular. I don't feel I'd  be inclined to deposit bad seeds anywhere … I think it's up to the team to decide whether anything is outside of the guidlines and terms of agreement … if someone goes outside of those, then I'm happy for the Team to deal with them … indeed I think it's  their duty to do so.

Not an easy thing to create and administer a community and there are lots of things that I read that I don't like, but I support that people are able to say what they like …

Full marks to the Team for doing it all and for listening as well.

As of now, I'm going to actively not participate in giving seeds away (good or bad) even though I already have.

Jim x

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I don't think anyone has been dissenting out fear. I think people have been dissenting out of love: love of what Zaadz has been and love for what they hope Zaadz will continue to be and the Zaadz we can't even imagine right now.

~David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hi David 

I don't find any lost love here, I hold no hope for anyone or thing to change.  I can only change myself, hence my experience will change… The choice is within us all :)

There is no dissent where there is LOVE <3

Harmonious love to you David xxx Angel

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

    Here is my little input, I'll admit I haven't read much on this new post, but I did read most of the previous one. So basically I am just going to say my opinion here.

    In theory the seed system would be a great tool, good, important, potent content can be brought to the front for people to see without having tons of views, so people give up their seeds or 'influence' to support others. In contrast to that, they can give things bad seeds because either they don't help anyone, they content leads to destruction, etc. This would be great against posts that are or may become popular but can be a bad influence.
    The problem with this is of course, us. We aren't perfect, some may abuse the system, or just succumb to temporary insanity and go give things they don't like, but aren't bad posts, bad seeds. It is somewhat countered by limiting seeds people have, but the procreation of seeds can also be a problem. What if someone is very helpful and influencial but does so without making blogs or doing many posts. Maybe most of it is messages sent in mail, I could go on but you get the point.
    An improvment I think can be made is if you mix the new 'activity' feature with the 'seeds', this way we can find out what our friends like a lot, or things they would recommend. Maybe also intigrate it with pods, if you are apart of a pod that has a post with high seeds you'll be notified like you are with friends activity, or say something in one of your friends pods has a lot of seeds (of course that could lead to too much to look at for new activity then). Also maybe having different pages of zaadz to show top seeded posts and new posts, or posts by those with many seeds, all on different pages so you could easily find and keep track of things you maybe interested in. Maybe even categorize it by tags and such so their is more organization so that it is even easier to find good content. Have it even so that old posts that have many seeds can still be pretty easily found through like top seeded content. Just spouting off ideas to improve this new system and make it the best for everyone.

    As a side note I really like the activity feature that was added, good job guys!
   Not sure how to really conteract bad seeds other than them being 'neutralized' by other good seeds.
    Your Friend of Progress and Revolution
–Kyle

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Boy this seeds thing has gotten folks riled up. But with all good controversy, it makes us think and answer moral questions. But, it the core issue it raises is:

Are we willing to care for one another adequately?

I don't believe that the ZaadzTeam, or at least Siona who I believe is quite sincere and solid in doing good, had any nefarious intentions. Rather they wanted to solve a practical problem of keeping Zaadz free of junk, spam and other things we don't want here. But obviously the roll out of the seeds program did not adequately address how people would feel about it. Most of us still fear being bashed by other egos, so it's not surprising the way people reacted.

But this reaction implicates the WHOLE ZAADZ COMMUNITY.

Will we, the Zaadzters, take enough consideration and care of one another NOT to need such a program?

What people are really afraid of is that others will not take them sufficiently into account and treat them rightly.

First, we are afraid of the “bad seeds” who will be rude, problematic, etc. If you express yourself openly and positively you may want and expect to be treated with respect and kindness and not have the bad seed ruin your day.

Second, we are afraid others will cast us as the “bad seed” and we will be misunderstood and rejected. Again we are afraid that others will treat us badly.

What we have is a bunch of egos being worried that other egos will not take care of them. Sorry, no other way to slice this one.

And what about some comment or blog that gets YOU riled up? Do you resort to name calling and attacks on the speaker? Or do you engage in a dialogue about the ideas?

Hate to say it, but many Zaadzters are willing attribute bad motives and traits to others they disagree with. Good ideas, critical insights, critique of social and spiritual trends are often met with attacks on the writers; not a constructive dialogue about the content of the blog or pod or a willingness to see a different viewpoint or opinion.

So let's think about what we have created O bright and shiny ones. We should be the change we want our Zaadz world to be. 

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hello, Gang

Yesterday I said..

“Then, there's simply the integrity of the system itself which will surely be called into question.  Will it work similarly to the “Popular Blog Tags” listed on our home page which, at least to me, seem to omit almost all of the popular blog topics I read.

I could easily be mistaken, and forgive me for bringing this up if I am, but in a group of people out to “change the world” it seems odd that there is no tag for activism, politics, and so many others.  Is there actually a “system” that rises these things to the top or do we just have the appearance of a system?”

Later, Jake replied…

“There is no system except popularity in those tags. What you see in “Popular Blog Tags” are simply the tags with the greatest number of entries.”

At the risk of being redundant, I'd like to bring this up again because I consider it a relevant  and unclosed point.   To see if I was in error I checked the following tags..

276 entries for happy
is highlighted in bold on the front page, one of our hottest blog topics

392 entries for quotes
468 entries for global warming
823 entries for politics
none of these appear in the tag clouds in question

Having said that let me point out that I'm not questioning anyone's sincerity.   Jake may not have been aware of these numbers when he responded, there could be a ghost in the machine, or perhaps I simply do not understand what I'm seeing.  But at first glance this tells me that something is wrong.

The appearance is that Zaadz sees itself as having a vested interest in what topics rise to the top and what topics do not.   Moreover, Zaadz, or at least someone at Zaadz, is wiling to  hand manipulate the results if our conversations do not translate into their idea of good appearance.  

So, who's really voting here, Gang?   If you thought you were voting with your tags, it looks like you were mistaken. If you didn't think about it at all, perhaps now you know.

I'm reminded that Google, Yahoo, and others face a similar question when dealing with search results.   Do you let the results rise as they may or do you manipulate results to fit your own idea of what is good and what is bad?   So far all reputable search engines insist they're doing the former.

I don't think an explanation of how this is relevant to the Zaadz seed system is needed so I won't labor you with more details.

In conclusion, I hope my observations are incorrect and if they are I sincerely apologize, but I can find nothing about this system to admire.  

Thanks for reading..

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Love to you, Angel.  :)

David

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

It's late, and I'm on my way to bed, but I just wanted to say that the group of you are just amazing. There's so much love and thought and care and concern and emotion going into all of this. Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you.

Maybe we should just stick a beta on the little seeds and say that for now they don't really do anything (which is actually pretty true; Jake's still finessing certain algorithms ) and we'll let everyone play around and have fun giving away the seeds they store up (I think I've accumated more today, given all the comments on the team blog, than I would have in the past month) and if it turns out that people start modifying their behavior just to curry favor, or self-censoring because there's a fear of a point of negative feedback, well, then we'll change things.

Given the dialog that's been unfolding here, though, I don't much think any of you are going to start failing to speak out–nor, for that matter, would you have any problem with others who say things you might not agree with–and I do have high hopes that you can judge (yes, judge!) the difference between disrespect and disagreement.  Please please please keep disagreeing. Just remember, in doing so, to play nice. :)

Okay. Must sleep.

PS. We've got a blocking system in the works, so that instead of flagging content, you can just block a person from communicating with you and keep them from contacting or commenting on your posts. Would this be a preferable alternative to the negative feedback? If so, we can certainly look at this substitution.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Siona,

a blocking system looks like the one real 'taking responsibility into my own hands' tool that really makes sense - for me, it would be THE solution.

the seeds system is what is going to make me leave zaadz - and definitly not because I'm afraid of negative seeds. that's not my point. I wouldn't mind having a 'bad' resputation - and I doubt I would manage to get one. I've slept on it. it still feels totally off. I'm not going to stay on a site that works with direct ranking.

the 'What's hot - what's new' features are working fine. we can see who's posts are hot, you see how many hits blog posts get and I'm sure you behind the scenes can see even more, much more, then we do on the page. for me, that is more then enough control and ranking and evaluating going on here. more will be too much. for me.

if the seeds system really was meant as a tool for better protection against abusive action, I'd say drop the fine tuning of the seeds and put all resources into the blocking system. that'll put all the responsibilty we need into our hands to protect ourselves, if there is a need for that.

I also love this discussion. zaadz is a living organism. as long as I'm part of it I'm enjoying being involved in creating a space that so far has been quite unique and special, even after selling and adding advertising.

with love and curiosity,
Gabriele

My Seed Status:

Lagniappe is “thinking he’d rather be self-seeding at the moment than ‘supersede’ the new ideas about ‘good and bad’ seed distribution”

All things (and moderation)

I think that moderation is an interesting development on Zaadz, with a lot of upside and downside potential. Moderation of individual comments can be great for helping a person quickly skim a long document for useful information, or for removing spam. There also seems to be a desire on the part of the Zaadz admin to select some people from the community to help guide the ship, and the moderation system will act similar to an election. I assume that this is needed to allow Zaadz to expand and still function, and will free up the Zaadz higher-ups to improve Zaadz in other ways. Great! The question is; how are these goals best acheived?

Personally, I'd like to see a little structre to the moderation system beyond simply  saying “I like this person or post.” How about the ability to give seeds for posts that correspond to particular positive values that Zaadz  feels are too rare and they want to encourage? Or, if the goal is to serve as a type of election, then people should be 'voted' into a particular office.

After all, a moderation system is, inherantly, a value system. A value system without defined values and explicit goals is just a popularity contest. And I don't think most people here want that. So what values do we want to promote?

If people are worried about unfair negative feedback, sites like slashdot require that each moderation (each seed in this case) is subject to 'meta moderation' by several other anonymous users to see if they agree with the negative feedback. So a person could be given negative moderation for a very specific problem (Spam, rudeness, violation of the terms of service, offtopic posting, etc.) The person who wants to give negative feedback could do it with a drop-down box, and select from certain these specific problems. Other anonymous members would then be asked if they agree that the negative feedback is fair when they volunteer to meta-moderate. If the other members all agree that the post broke a particular rule, then the negative feedback would stick.

Also, could there be a (low) limit to how many seeds a person might gain each month via posting? I can see the benefit in encouraging people to contribute. But maybe more than one post per month shouldn't give additional benefit. That way, people aren't encouraged to post meaningless content that others would have to dig through.

Re: All things (and moderation)

Ryan….

I'm a little late in getting to this, but I just wanted to thank you for all the ideas. I love the idea of breaking the feedback down so that people can choose which value they think is being demonstrated–brilliant. Thank you, and thank you, too, for the meta-moderation and 'capping' rule. (This, actually, is already in place. I know it wasn't mentioned, but there is a cap on how many 'seeds' people can gain. It's based on how many seeds that person has been given by others. Jake did put a great deal of thought into how to keep the feedback system from being abuse. :)

Again, though, thank you. This is wonderfully helpful.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I personally have had  what I term abuse heaped on me in Zaadz. I wont go into details here about it, ( I speculated in Diving deep, that moderating negativity is the reason for this) apparently this is the motivating force behind this seeds thing, as Siona says.

I handled the abuse I believe( for a hot-head like me) pretty well, by just leaving the pod, though I did post my displeasure- to say the least- to the participants, and to zaadz over the incident.

Anyway, I will make a suggestion to Siona( who is a great lady) that may make some sense.

If they want to do this, leave in the positive aspects of it, and take out the negative aspects of giving demerits to people, and having folks judge others, and be punished by subjective criticism. The positive parts of giving good seeds out may serve your purpose without doing all the negative stuff that David brings up.

Zaadz is  indeed special, but I think we must accept the good, bad, and the ugly, and deal with it as it comes along.

Look, I don't mind a little conflict, but try my best not to start it, but  it is a part of life, but this solution may breed more conflict, than it moderates, don't you think.

I want to express my regrets that Curmudgeon apparently left over this. I hope he returns, and if he reads this I want to give him the peace and say I respect his actions but hope he returns.

Love

Zak

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

The more I think about this Trust system, the less I like it.

It’s based on behaviorism: conditioning (Pavlov) and operant conditioning (Skinner). The goal is to reinforce the behaviors you want to see, and to reinforce negatively the behaviors you want to extinguish.

You want people to be active, post things, comment? Give them a seed each time they do so!

The first experiments with conditioning have been made on animals: dogs, pigeons and so on. It does not target the neo-cortex, but the mamalian brain.

The community will also act as a reinforcing stimulus. This could lead probably to banality. We see this in arts nowadays: What sells more is what is beeing done: The community will send good seeds for what they want to see the most, that will be publicized more and more accessible. This kind of system prevents new work of art to emerge, work that disturb at first, as they won’t be publicized and be visible. New thoughts, new art, is mostly not wanted at first.

Copernic was ostracized, Socrates, Meister Eckhart, Mystics of all sort. The list is to long.

The way to banality and mediocrity is paved.

Be well,
Patrick

clonz.com

Your post made me think about ‘cloning’ and instead of seeds the ideal is more about ‘cloning’ sameness, conformity, etc…..which led to the idea of starting a new site called clonz.com (just kidding of course) (I’m not really THAT pessimistic about the new idea - yet)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hi Zak,
             your comment  is a little confusing in the first paragraph.  To me this sounds like the negative experience is one you had on Diving Deeper when you posted there.

I'd like to make it clear that you posted on Diving Deeper recently  and the negative experience is to do with something else and not the activities in the Diving Deeper pod.

You said:

I personally have had  what I term abuse heaped on me in Zaadz. I wont go into details here about it, ( I speculated in Diving deep, that moderating negativity is the reason for this) apparently this is the motivating force behind this seeds thing, as Siona says.

Jim

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

For the record, it was not  in diving deeper where I had my negative experience. I don't think in diving deeper that could happen

My Seed Status

This is a comment posted elsewhere which because i had said in my ‘status box’
lagniappe is … .thinking I’d rather be self-seeding at the moment than ‘supersede’ the new ideas about ‘good and bad’ seed distribution.

“My Seed Status”

I am still thinking I’d rather be self-seeding at the moment than ‘supersede’ the new ideas about ‘good and bad’ seed distribution. I’ve given it a go. I’ve distributed all of my seeds. So, like a few others I have “0” seeds to distribute.

I do see that the ‘bad’ seed idea has already changed and that the seed box is for ‘giving thanks’ (thank goodness!) The idea of distributing a negative seed seems contradictory to the ideals of even sowing seeds in the first place.

I am still in a quandry though - despite reading how this all works - that now that I have ‘0’ seeds - my voice is now ‘silenced’ until I provide some content on the site. I can not offer my thanks to anyone else now until I get some seeds….and yet, I am still, nontheless thankful. Of course I could post my thankfulness in emails, shout-outs, etc.

I think of a Quaker Meeting - (a silent type worship) where everyone enters the Meeting…some may stand and speak out of the silence - to offer ministry. The fact that others might not stand and speak doesn’t mean that they are ‘less’ or ‘more’ ‘popular’ to use a phrase that has been going on here within Zaadz.

A completely silent meeting for worship is often ‘very centred’ as we call it - feeling a special spirit among all present.

In the US there is a custom that I witness which was rare (to me at least) where someone standing and offering vocal ministry is ‘Eldered’ - where another stands in silence to suggest that the ‘Eldering’ person is not in harmony with the vocal ministry - or feels moved by the spirit that the person who began the ministry first is not necessarily speaking from the spirit (but perhaps from a personal, political agenda - or what have you).

I found the experience of seeing someone ‘Eldered’ quite profound… the person ‘being eldered’ sat down after a little bit more “rambling” (my term for what I heard). And the “Eldering” Friend then sat down. Later after more silence someone else stood up and felt moved (and I believe from the spirit) to say that the spirit led her to desire to actually hear what the original person wanted to say…..

The interesting thing is - that I felt this way too.

The original person offering the Ministry - which had originally been Eldered - was able to reflect in these moments - then, in the silence - and then he stood and spoke again…it was much more clear - and I truly felt that the spirit had finally gotten through to him and he conveyed his message more clearly.

The ‘seed’ thing - as I said elsewhere to me is more like we are the ‘seeds’ ourselves….and what we should be offering to others is ‘water, nutrients, care’ etc……that’s just my opinion … we are GROWING - a plant that is growing or a seed that is growing doesn’t need more ‘seeds’ - they need love and care.

(my posting this here is an attempt to gain more seeds - even if it’s a duplication from another thread - I am not sure it will work - it’s all an experiment)

Re: My Seed Status

yes, I guess it worked…I now have ‘4’ where there once were none….whether given by another or ‘earned’ from posting I will not know…and I don’t care either way…as my post above was suggesting - I can still be thankful and give thanks even if I don’t have any seeds to give out.

Re: My Seed Status

Hi lagniappe,

You cannot receive seeds by others “giving” them to you, only by posting content.  I know you said you don't care either way.  I just want to make sure people understand that.

~M

Re: My Seed Status

Thanks for the clarification.

Re: My Seed Status

Okay, now I am confused.   I watch my seednumbers go up last night when I had done nothing.

If the seeds I spend on clicking for another goes away, what does the recepient see when I click on a comment for them.   Do they get some kinf =d of message?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Looking at it from a business perspective, this seed system makes perfectly good sense. Reward people who post a lot with points that make a little gold circle glow so they can feel hot. Meanwhile, get those eyeballs to as many pages as often as possible, make 'em look at the ads. 200,000 eyeballs hitting the pages, let's say 3 to 4 hours a day, that should make our advertising rates go way up. Done deal.

That taking this measure has the side-effect of instituting a class system of glowy and unlit  suckers customers, may not have been considered during these business discussions, but I doubt that it wasn't.  Hey, these people are smart, right?  At any rate, making zaadzsters acutely aware of an emerging “elite” upper class (endowed with  a certain number of points assigned yesterday by the “top,” as Siona has called it) at a time when millions are waking up to the fact that they are mostly wage-slaves with no voice or effective vote, would seem to be a stunningly insensitive move. Incongruent with the  hype professed mission statement of Let's Change the World etc.

Hmm, perspectives… take 'em and leave them. But certainly, the business standpoint is worth considering.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Apologies in advance - as there seem to be 3 main areas to add our opinions on this new Trust System, I will probably be repeating myself ( no, not in order to gain more seeds, truly!!). Apologies also if I have missed some of the updates on changes to how the system works or if I have misunderstood how it does, in fact, work.

I have a very particular issue about these seeds, and it concerns my Diving Deeper writing workshop pod and how we as a community on that pod comment on creative work.  I'll come to this in a minute

After re-reading the instructions several times ( I guess that is what you mean about sages, if you can understand them quickly then you must be a sage!), it seemed to be less of a big deal than when I first read them. and I suspect once the hoo haa has settled down, things will more or less carry on as per usual ( apart from the Diving Deeper issue below).

I remembered in the early days 'checking on how many views' my profile had… it made me feel good. Right now I can't remember the last time I checked, I just stopped, it took to much time, I had better things to do here, and at some point of course I realised that how many people viewed my profile meant NOTHING. The comments on my blogs meant something - and the emails I got directly meant something ( to me at least ). i.e. the actual, human interaction, the words shared, the time someone took to read a blog or share what they thought, this all lands over with me as LOVE.

Piles of seeds or numbers of views? I dunno. I think after a while it will fall into the background.

But do have a few things to say  generally - I feel that we as a community should have been notified of this new change. Maybe we were, maybe I missed it. It feels like a big one, bigger than the shout outs etc. I suspect this is one of the reasons so many are upset.

When I make changes to my pod, I always put a little announcement out warning people.

NOTE: I see this has already been brought up here by Jordan and addressed by Siona. Thank you.  As has the following issue:

The fact that there did not seem to be an immediate place to talk about this…. it was not possible to comment on the instructions. I just noticed at the bottom  there is a direction to a discussion board -  Anyway, it is a bit of a mess in so far as it does not have the full on dialogue that is going on the Team Blog or here so it's still confusing.

I am sure some of the 'emotional responses' came out of feeling helpless  - that this “Thing” had been done all of a sudden and that we could not talk about It, at least easily. Now that we can at least talk about it and that some of our concerns are being addressed, I feel things will begin to shift, at least in the emotional plane!

For some reason the whole issue of sponsors felt like it was handled better,  I remember feeling 'part' of the decision making ( where they would be, top, side, how big etc), even if I wasn't, it felt that way.



Ok, next.
This bit on the instructions:

If someone's Reputation Score falls gets too low, all content they've posted in public areas is “folded”—hidden from users who aren't logged in, and minimized to title only unless clicked by members. Also, their profile becomes visible only to community members.

If someone's Score really gets bad, they lose the ability to post new content to public areas on the site; content posted on their blog, albums, and so on, is excluded from new/hot/search, friends' blogs and notifications. They can still edit any content they they've already created, however, and can reply to messages but not send new ones. And they'll lose your seeds available, so they cannot give feedback.

Essentially, they'll lose their voice.

I feel this could have been worded differently or explained better, or something.  I'm sure it's been clarified on the threads ( I've not read all of them, doing my best to catch up ). I know people here who do not post much, do not blog and yet are shining lights in my life and I am forever grateful to zaadz for bringing into my life, they continue to work 'behind the scenes' as it were, if not prominently on zaadz.  I guess the only way around this is to make sure these people get all our “Big Love” vote.

Next: and this is my biggest concern.

It's about our community and mission on the Diving Deeper pod. According to the Trust System Instructions,

you can give these seeds to other members in the form of positive or negative feedback on blog entries, photos, discussion board posts, comments, mail messages, and member profiles.

So far, I have not seen here on the pod any “I liked it” or “Flag for Review” links that I see are now on blogs. I believe they are not implemented yet, but will be.

According to the instructions, it seems we will be able to 'rate' postings on Diving Deeper. I and my moderators and indeed all the active members of the pod have spent a huge amount of time refining the system of commenting on our creative work. If you are interested, please read this thread, On Giving Constructive Criticism, which has a link in it to the On Commenting thread which also should be read.

Here is an excerpt - I believe the points are are useful even if we are commenting on 'non-creative' work, i.e. opinion pieces, or anything at all writing here on zaadz quite frankly:

_______________________

1. Ask yourself:  what is your motivation behind you wanting to comment and the content of that comment? Is it to support the writer you are commenting to, or? [eg to simply bandy about your opinions]


2.  Ask The Writer:

Ask the writer if they are okay with some 'deeper' analysis and commentary on their work.


3. State what works for you in the writing:

There is always something. It's like people, you might really find them awful, but keep taking a look and there will be something to love. Always.

There are many spiritual paths that teach a simple method: place your attention on what works, and what does not work drops away. This has been my experience.

Also, if you begin with something positive, you support the listener to be open to what else you have to share.

4. Ask questions about the writing:

Ask questions rather than make statements about what you don't like or what in your opinion doesn't work. If you feel you don't understand something, or it is confusing or whatever, see if you can frame your impression in the form of a question.

Questions allow the writer to  align with what they themselves are trying to share in their writing, even if they are not consciously aware of what this is.

Statements tend to force our own opinions onto the writer, they actually don't really  tell the writer anything about the writing, only about the person making the statement.

I have always found that questions lead me as a writer to go deeper into what I have written - I ask myself questions: Was I just slap-dash ..? Is there more here for me to open up? Do I really know what I was trying to say or was I caught up in the prettiness of the language? Have I simply assumed the reader will understand something that I want them to understand?

5. Be willing to be wrong [and say so!]

_______________________

There is more - if you are interested please go to the link above ( On Giving Constructive Criticism).


We absolutely do not 'rate' work on Diving Deeper. It goes completely against my method and approach to supporting writers. But we do spend a lot of time commenting and sharing about the work - it's a huge part of the 'workshop' factor of this pod.  If we start 'rating' the creative pieces, I'm worried. Perhaps the rating will be invisible, I'm not too clear on this. Perhaps all it does is make the original writer of the piece get more seeds and the giver less.

But even if it is 'invisible' - it thoroughly concerns me that we add this to our way of approaching the work on Diving Deeper (and I'm sure there are other 'creative' pods that feel the same way, Dryad's Play Pod, for example).

In some ways it makes more sense to 'rate' the comments in Diving Deeper since these are where most of us need to apply more awareness and attention, looking at how we can comment in a way that really supports the writer and the person. And I will try to establish clear guidelines for all the members of Diving Deeper regarding this, (once we come to an agreement about how 'rating' can or cannot serve the pod, specifically).

On occasion someone joins the pod and immediately makes a completely inappropriate posting or comment, and this is really the only time I see where the “Flag for Review” should/could be used. (And I mean truly off, not just someone's moment of disarray. I've usually simply deleted those posts - there have been only about 3 maximum, as far as I can remember).

We have had flare ups on this pod, a few 'sticky' times, but bar none, we as a community have always managed to resolve them with love and further discussion, publicly on the pod itself and via personal email to the people involved. I fear that if we have a link we can hit that sends 'negative' feedback to a comment or post, it will circumvent this wonderful process of dialogue and 'we-ness'. When emotions are high, we react, usually unconsciously. It sometimes takes time and patience to come to a place of greater clarity and love. A link to give 'negative feedback' supports reacting from a place of unconsciousness, to my mind. Yes we can 'make up' for it by emailing, giving 'big love' to make up for the loss of seeds etc etc, but this seems a slightly backward way to handle this.

One thing that came to me that might support NOT being trigger happy with giving seeds or positive or negative feedback is that it be mandatory to explain yourself. I read a post on the Team Blog comments that seems to imply that this is already so for 'negative' feedback - if so this is great. I feel it should also be part of the 'giving good' feedback/seed process.

Thanks everyone, who read this far.

p.s. Siona, please do not feel you have to answer both posts on this (ie here and on the one on the Team Blog, and indeed I don't need an answer at all, I just wanted to share my particular concerns about the Diving Deeper pod as it may resonate with others who are doing creative work here).

p.p.s addition after reading more of the posts, I wanted to send appreciation to the whole team for input and staying with us on all of this, and indeed for creating this community  where we can have these discussions in the first place - the level of interaction and feelings expressed  here  is a testament to the beauty of zaadz, imho.

Love, Sandra

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I'm in favor of insisting on certain basic standards of decorum, but they must permit a free and vigorous exchange of ideas and opinions. Perhaps egregious offenders, truly disruptive commenters could eventually be barred, but most online forums I've participated in were pretty effective at self-policing, i.e., people who behaved very badly were called to task by others.

It is troubling to see so many zaadzsters tut-tut about “negativity.” As I suggest above, there are truly disruptive, perverse people, but I suspect “negativity” all too often is how people describe being disagreed with.

Sure: let's be kind and supportive of each other, but once we start making points and judgment, let's be man/woman enough to bear criticism of our views. The critic might be a bit thick or a bit mean, but so what? The critic might also be providing a wakeup call for someone in the throes of dogmatic slumber.

To read some complainers against “negativity” you'd think these folks were 19th century swooners who fainted in distress at the slightest provocation. Better to have a “play pen” where such hothouse flowers can avoid the cold winds of controversy than to imprison everybody else with what must be arbitrary judgments about good and bad behavior.

Behavior policing invariably favors the orthodox. For example, hothouse flowers of the kind I have mentioned might casually denounce, say, Republican politics or traditional Catholicism, and then be thrown into a tizzy by the “negativity” of someone expressing indignation at their prejudices. This kind of thing is bound to happen all the time. If one has the right opinions, they're much less likely to fall into disfavor.

No one is going to get bad seeds by being a good little doggie. Critical thinkers and even well-meaning gadflies will share their authentic selves at their peril.

Again: what would bad seeds have meant for the likes of Socrates? Martin Luther King stirred up a great deal of “negativity” too, if I recall correctly.

The New Seed Bank Idea Is a What It IS

jrevanosky@hotmail.com">

All is as it needed to be re seeds and seeds bank system here on ZAADZ.

For me it is now just another “thing” to release attachments to.

It will be as it IS. 

This reminds me of

“The Bene Gesserit Littany against Fear.
Pg 19 of Dune

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.  ”

ZAADZ and the seeds band will do what they do as shall I.

Much Love, Gobs of Laughter & Blessed IS,

Jeremiah

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a What It IS

Just when I thought I had this new system somewhat figured out I see something else I don't understand

Re: My Seed Status ~Matthew said 9 minutes ago: Hi lagniappe, You cannot receive seeds by others “giving” them to you, only by posting content.  I know you said you don't care either way.  I just want to make sure people understand that.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a What It IS

Ayla-
I'm certainly not an authority on how this all works, but here's what I understand:
Giving seeds away is like giving a vote for great content and being appreciated.
Getting seeds happens through participating and using your voice.
Okay, someone who knows things, is this right?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a What It IS

Yes.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a What It IS

Thank you Jake!
So okay, everybody, all those times you think, “Gee, I wish more people read this blog” or “saw this post” or “knew about this amazing person” - you have a way to help that process along.
No one's voice is being silenced, all this drama seems a bit over the top.
Maybe we could just try it out?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a What It IS

I really liked what Jeremiah had to say up there a few posts. That is just perfect. jen

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a What It IS

Okay, so I'm still not getting it.  By “voting” (giving seeds) I'm somehow boosting their rating, losing (my) actual seeds, but not giving any actual seeds … how exactly does this boost anything? Does the little yellow circle I can barely see get brighter or what?  Is there someplace that the person actually sees that someone has given them a Big Love or a Thank You? 

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a What It IS

Ayla, think of it as an anonymous love note - but one that gives good juice to the person you bestow it upon.
It isn't about you getting credit for being nice (you already are and anonymous gifts are just fun), and it isn't about you giving them seeds (they can get those on their own just by participating in the community).
It's about having the power to bestow acknowledgment on the people you appreciate..

Understanding the Invaluable Stages of Group Development

I am starting to move into a witness stance around what is going down here on Zaadz and beginning to see our process as a stage of group development. Here is some, I think, very useful quoted material from Wikipedia

The Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing model of team development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results. This model has become the basis for subsequent models of team dynamics and frequently used management theory to describe the behavior of existing teams. It has also taken a firm hold in the field of experiential education, in many outdoor education centers where team building and leadership development are key goals.

Forming

In the first stages of team building, the forming of the team takes place. The team meets and learns about the opportunity and challenges, and then agrees on goals and begins to tackle the tasks. Team members tend to behave quite independently. They may be motivated but are usually relatively uninformed of the issues and objectives of the team. Team members are usually on their best behavior but very focused on themselves. Mature team members begin to model appropriate behavior even at this early phase. Sharing the knowledge of the concept of “Teams - Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing” is extremely helpful to the team.

Supervisors of the team tend to need to be directive during this phase. 

Storming

IN the storming stage different ideas compete for consideration. The team addresses issues such as what problems they are really supposed to solve, how they will function independently and together and what leadership model they will accept. Team members open up to each other and confront each other's ideas and perspectives.

In some cases storming can be resolved quickly. In others, the team never leaves this stage. The maturity of some team members usually determines whether the team will ever move out of this stage. Immature team members will begin acting out to demonstrate how much they know and convince others that their ideas are correct. Some team members will focus on minutiae to evade real issues.

The storming stage is necessary to the growth of the team. It can be contentious, unpleasant and even painful to members of the team who are averse to conflict. Tolerance of each team member and their differences needs to be emphasized. Without tolerance and patience the team will fail. This phase can become destructive to the team and will lower motivation if allowed to get out of control.

Supervisors of the team during this phase may be more accessible but tend to still need to be directive in their guidance of decision-making and professional behavior.

Norming

At some point, the team may enter the norming stage. Team members adjust their behavior to each other as they develop work habits that make teamwork seem more natural and fluid. Team members often work through this stage by agreeing on rules, values, professional behavior, shared methods, working tools and even taboos. During this phase, team members begin to trust each other. Motivation increases as the team gets more acquainted with the project.

Teams in this phase may lose their creativity if the norming behaviors become too strong and begin to stifle healthy dissent and the team begins to exhibit groupthink.

Supervisors of the team during this phase tend to be participative more than in the earlier stages. The team members can be expected to take more responsibility for making decisions and for their professional behavior.

Performing

Some teams will reach the performing stage. These high-performing teams are able to function as a unit as they find ways to get the job done smoothly and effectively without inappropriate conflict or the need for external supervision. Team members have become interdependent. By this time they are motivated and knowledgeable. The team members are now competent, autonomous and able to handle the decision-making process without supervision. Dissent is expected and allowed as long as it is channelled through means acceptable to the team.

Supervisors of the team during this phase are almost always participative. The team will make most of the necessary decisions. Even the most high-performing teams will revert to earlier stages in certain circumstances. Many long-standing teams will go through these cycles many times as they react to changing circumstances. For example, a change in leadership may cause the team to revert to storming as the new people challenge the existing norms and dynamics of the team.

Adjourning and Transforming

Tuckman later added a fifth phase, adjourning, that involves completing the task and breaking up the team. Others call it the phase for mourning.

A team that lasts may transcend to a transforming phase of achievement. Transformational management can produce major changes in performance through synergy and is considered to be more far-reaching than transactional management.

Further Developments

It has also been suggested, most notably by Timothy Biggs, that an additional stage be added of Norming after Forming and renaming the traditional Norming stage Re-Norming. This addition is designed to reflect that there is a period after Forming where the performance of a team gradually improves and the interference of a leader content with that level of performance will prevent a team progressing through the Storming stage to true performance.

This puts the emphasis back on the team and leader as the Storming stage must be actively engaged in to succeed – too many 'diplomats' or 'peacemakers' especially in a leadership role may prevent the team from reaching their full potential.

Re: Understanding the Invaluable Stages of Group Development

I liked Jeremiah’s post: letting go and taking it as it seeds!

As for me, I’m not that wise, and I just feel there start to be many things I have to ignore on Zaadz, from adds - not blinking anymore…Big thanks to the Team and big thanks to the people who voiced there disaproval of blinking adds - to seeds!

In the next few days I will reconsider my presence on Zaadz, as I feel it has nothing really special anymore.There is no hard feeling against anyone, just change in Zaadz and change in me.

What struck me was that I used to tell people of Zaadz and suggest they should check it. Since a few months, I don’t feel like that anymore and I haven’t talked about it to anyone around me. That’s a sign for me that I should move on.

Be well and much much love to all of you,

Patrick

Re: Understanding the Invaluable Stages of Group Development

Thanks for this perspective Wabisabisatva!

It's very interesting to consider this group development process as we grow our community connections.

Re: Understanding the Invaluable Stages of Group Development

Thanks, Wabisabisatva, for providing some reflection on the process that's unfolding here: it's fascinating.

At least we'll not ever have to worry about groupthink in this community. :)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I send all of my Love to each of you (regardless of how different your ideas may be or your ways of expressing them). I can't do that with the seeds (but then again that isn't exactly their purpose is it?). If you're interested in reading a bit more of my more personal take on this it's own my blog.
Jeremiah's latest response is an excellent example of listening to and following ones heart. 
All of these responces are a result of the freedom to speak with out fear of being excluded. (although we all know that many people exclude many people in their own way for their own reasons) I can seperate the action or behavior (takes the form of typed words here on zaadz which can be very easy to ignore) from the person. 
Dear Zaadz staff,
I hope none of you are taking any of these responses in a personal way … many do feel that this was a sincere effort to do what Zaadz staff felt was best for us all even if we don't see that happening. I'm watching and waiting. 
Much Love & Peace Always
BeLynn
  

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Wow, this “seed” thing seems like, as Cartman would put it, “a bunch of tree hugging hippie crap.” (Sorry Siona).  Oh, wait, if I express my opinion I may be thrown out of Zaadz!??!?!   So if my opinion is it not popular then I will be removed?

If we do not call our brothers and sisters on their self-aggrandizement, limited thinking, twisted logic, etc. WHO WILL?  Are we only here to pat each other on the back and reinforce others hubris? I welcome opportunities to grow and people who challenge my opinion.  IT FORCES ME TO THINK, not just accept the dogma I have embraced.  It keeps all of us from thowing out ideas that are half-formed and not supporting our positions.  We are not all going to agree but in my book it is not okay to reinforce thoughts and values and ideas based in EGO rather than moral principles. 

As an anthropolgist I have observed that every major religion and society has a common ground of morals and ethics.  I have also observed that many, many people on Zaadz, when questioned about holes in their theories, biase, or execution of their morals and ethics, become defensive.  According to the 'seed' system, these people would then be able to complain about those questioners to preserve their picture perfect world, believing that 'who are we to judge?” 

Is Zaadz just looking for cheerleaders?  Questioning someone's belief, theories, ideas, actions, etc. as well as our own leads to GROWTH, UNDERSTANDING, DEVELOPMENT, if not we are just sheep. 

I assume this system was invented to keep truly beligerent folk from just causing havoc for havoc's sake.  Crude, rude, and truly violent behavior should not be tolerated and those should be booted from Zaadz immediately, but, man, people have to get over their huge egos.  One guy named Hazard on one of these posts about censorship made a comment about like…I like to torch it and watch it burn…It was FUNNY and definately a call for people to stop taking themselves so seriously.  It is not the end of the world if someone doesn't agree with you and definately not the end of the world if someone QUESTIONS your beliefs.  This seed system just reinforces popular thought…unfortunately I have seen a lot of popular thought lately that is unproductive or just plain wrong (pick your value system).

So throw me out if I displease you.  Personally, I like the taste of mutton.

d

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I appreciate everything you said, but I'm a bit perplexed: why would we throw you out for an unpopular opinion? Are you actually afraid of us doing that?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

David, People can anonymously say “fuck you” anyways. 

For every person who says “fuck you” there is undoubtedly another that says “I LOVE YOU!!!” and I believe that the positive points count for more than the negative, at least here on Zaadz.

Perhaps a limit to how many times one person can give any one other person a bad seed would help eleviate your fears of recieving an overabundance of “fuck you's”.

obviously if one person gives “fuck you's” to a bunch of other people, then they create a reputation for doing such, and the value of their negative opinion goes down.

We used to have a class when I was a kid that was specifically designed to increase each students self esteem.  That didnt stop me from getting picked on or made fun of or messed with on the play ground, but it did teach me that I still retain value, though others may not treat me that way.  I consider that if this system of positive energy turns into a playground torture, then perhaps this isnt a community that I would be involved in. 

Lets put it this way, I feel it is an honor to be allowed to experiment true democracy.  I feel it is an honor to experience this experiment and (yes) study of the humanity at Zaadz.  Would this not prove the all wondering question of whether all men truly are created evil?

And would it not also help us to track our own progress toward a goal of openmindedness and acceptance? 

I think taking some more time to consider, to rethink, and perhaps to not take it personally.

To reject the seeds idea means placing too much trust in the omniscient goodness of the Zaadz administrators, where accepting it gives you the responsibility not only for your own opinion, but that if you see someone who has recieved a “fuck you” for no reason, and you believe it is unwarranted, to rise to thier defense and negate it…

“With regard to the shadow, people can have intense dislike for certain people because they see a part of themselves that they dont like in that other person” 

Perhaps the same can be said for the reasons behind the rejection of an idea or thought process behind an innovation.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Thank you.

Thank you for seeing this as an experiment.

Thank you for seeing this as a means to give and generate positivity.

Thank you seeing that the way this system is used depends entirely on the hands of those who hold it, and thank you for seeing that those of us who played a role in building it firmly believed that the community could use this collaboratively.

Thank you for seeing that it's not meant to be about 'ego' and collecting seeds (no one sees how many seeds you have but you, anyway) but about helping to find, as a group, the best of the best of the community, and helping to shower others with appreciation.

Thank you for understanding that there is responsibility involved.

Thank you for seeing that this is something that can be played with–no one but you decides where you'll spread those seeds–and that the emphasis should be on 'play.'

Thank you for not taking it personally.

And about the “f-yous,” well, now it's just a 'flag for review,' and there's already been a limit on how much you can flag something. (There's been some interest in making an explanation mandatory, and I think we'll make that happen.) So thank you for that, too.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hey Siona, I sympathize with what you seem to be going through here. For what it's worth, I don't think that you and the zaadz team are Hitler.  In fact, I highly suspect that you're nice, caring people.  ;-)

Siona: At least we'll not ever have to worry about groupthink in this community. :)

Great! So we all find different things valuable. Is there a way that the moderation system could acknolwedge that? Maybe with a '3 people in your network reccomended this post' type of feature, similar to Amazon?

As it applies to posts, the moderation system is only as good as the discernment that it brings. And it will only bring discernment if it is based on some kind of objective criteria which everyone can agree on.

“Siona thought that so-and-so post is valuable” is objective. “This post is good” is subjective.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Ryan: Brilliant. I was actually just chatting with another member about something more 'digg-like.' And the other advantage to something like your proposal is that I could, potentially, see what other content you liked best–chances are, if I like one thing you've found, I might appreciate others.

And I just gushed a thank you to Stella, but here's a HUGE thank you for the constructive feedback. Huge. :)

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

This is not nuclear physics, just get rid of the things in this seeds system that reinforces strife. Keep the positive aspects, and just hire a tough guy to deal with the knuckle heads (of course I realize I could be a knucklehead myself) who cause trouble.

People could, as they did me in a pod, gang up on one person, and make their reputation terrible, out of ignorance, being brainwashed, or just malice. So this system as it stands now may need work.

WARNING:

REMEMBER THIS FOLKS, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ILL WILL TOWARDS ZAADZ TYPE GROUPS( TRADITIONALIST, WHOM HATE EVERYTHING BUT TRADITIONAL WESTERN RELIGION, AND POLITICS)

I HAVE SEEN CIA AGENTS,  AND PSYOP TRICKS ON ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE SITE THAT BASICALLY WRECKED IT.

BE CAREFUL ZAADZ HIERARCHY, AND ZAADZ PEOPLE BECAUSE ANYONE CAN BE HERE TO CAUSE STRIFE, AND NO ONE WILL KNOW IT UNTIL WE ARE ALL AT EACH OTHERS THROATS, AND THEN IT WILL BE TOO LATE!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Since this seems to be where the 'main' discussion is happening, I'm putting a link to what I feel is a really excellent post on this subject  by David. For me it covers the psychological/emotional/ practical/political elements really beautifully and open-endedly.

It's here on the Team Blog

Sandra

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I have been debating saying anything in this thread, but you know, I get tired of the “don't exclude anybody for any reason” crap. I left other places because they couldn't or wouldn't deal with trolls. I'd also remind the zaadz team that this is a very small and vocal minority. Clearly, the vast numbers of people who use this site are either indifferent or like the idea.

Bring back the bad seeds. The seed idea in it's as-rolled-out form was great. If people who are used to being abusive (and not getting called on it due to others' co-dependence) don't like it, I say, “Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.”

As for the incredibly tired Hitler references, jeezus, get a new schtick already.

Liz

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Liz, big love - if I could give you more seeds I would!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but “Trust System” is just a euphemism for “Mind Control.”  It's part of a very North American need for incentives, and competion at the cost of others.  Unfortunately, many people think that we have to step on others in order to increase ourselves, but the reality of perfect relationships is that the fastest way to grow in everyway is to raise one another at every step - not only when we fall, but also when we're at our current greatest.  It's a mutual, beneficial reciprocity that's meant to create a new order existence.

In Asia, no one gets a belt for having achived a level of study in Martial Arts, while in America people have to have them to keep them interested. Serious practitioners don't require a material symbol because they experience their progression internally - and that is a real incentive.

So what do bad seeds really mean?  People don't like what someone has to say?  A lot of really smart guys got a lot of bad seeds in the form of hemlock, spikes and crosses…

Bertrand Russell said in his autobiography that, “…the smart man says one thing and the stupid people translate that into what their minds can understand.”

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Liz: I have been debating saying anything in this thread, but you know, I get tired of the “don't exclude anybody for any reason” crap. I left other places because they couldn't or wouldn't deal with trolls. I'd also remind the zaadz team that this is a very small and vocal minority. Clearly, the vast numbers of people who use this site are either indifferent or like the idea.

Bring back the bad seeds. The seed idea in it's as-rolled-out form was great. If people who are used to being abusive (and not getting called on it due to others' co-dependence) don't like it, I say, “Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.”

As for the incredibly tired Hitler references, jeezus, get a new schtick already.

~~~

I agree with what Liz says above.  Until now I was thinking that one of the greatest things about the new rating system is that people who are too far gone into masturbatory pluralistic relativism would leave in disgust. 

I am seriously disappointed that the Z-team backed down on this, and now we apparently have a fluffy-bunny system where only positive feedback can be given.  How is that supposed to work?  I was hoping the rating system would become more sophisticated and nuanced over time, rather than emasculated right at the outset.

Sheesh.

arthur

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

So much has already been said here. But I just want to add an observation that might be a little too obvious and bloody-minded, and maybe that's precisely why it hasn't been mentioned. And so the cup passes to me.

Zaadz in a growth phase, and the seeds system is about metrics and traffic. And ultimately, marketing. The new features that have been added lately are all about increasing activity. Growth. They encourage us to log on more often and leave more tracks, more traces of our visits. They are designed to do so. Hope that doesn't sound horribly cynical. It's just that the folks who work at zaadz want people to use it more and will continue to think of little ways to get us to use it more. And more. It all begins to feel very contrived, doesn't it?

As many have already pointed out, systems of accountability and control develop in any social gathering. Zaadz members already had ways of monitoring one another's input, providing feedback, dealing with problems, etc. We're human. We self-organize. So it was never about that. That's just a nice way to spin it. No worries.

What I dislike is the shift towards activities that are immediate and shallow. When I joined zaadz the available modes of interaction required a certain amount of thought, reflection, focus, and effort. Compare the process of composing a blog or pod post to leaving a shoutout or seed.

Perhaps it's inherent in online media - this movement towards the easy, reflexive, throwaway action. Perhaps it's inherent in our culture. But it strikes me as being at odds with the values zaadz ostensibly espouses. Shouldn't the modes of interaction be designed to support the expression of those values? Shouldn't the process itself reflect those values? Mindfulness. Presence. Acceptance. Deep listening. Reciprocity. Dialogue. Care. Trust. (Say what you will, but it's abundantly and ironically clear that the seeds do not promote trust. Sorry, I think it's kind of funny.)

I do love the fact that this discussion has not been about metrics and marketing (only people like me think about that shit because we've been trained to). Instead this conversation has been about values and all the ideas that are important to us. That shouldn't surprise me because afterall that's why we're here. But I think it's beautiful. Especially the comment by David Williams, as Sandra sweetly points out. But then again (as he well knows) I think everything Dave says is beautiful…

Gracias y hasta la vista!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Sorry to intrude on anyone's conspiracy theories, but the good people at Zaadz have been talking about and working on an accountabilty system for almost 2 years (I brought it up with C4 when I met him), long before they were bought. I'm amazed at the paranoia and immediate condemnation that is taking place here.

These are the people who brought you zaadz, folks. This is not the Bush administration, nor Hitler's, nor some big sinister corporate takeover. And guess what? In case you missed it, they have stated since the beginning that they are CAPITALISTS. Yes, you heard right. That means they need to actually pay for this site with ads. And when the ads annoyed us, they listened. What the hell kind of evil takover is that? A piss poor one, if you ask me.

I've been on plenty of sites I had to pay for that were far less responsive and sensitive to their customers' needs. I'm really sorry that this is the thanks they get.

Liz

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Question?

Can anyone tell us can we redeem our seeds for money? If so, I refuse to take American money, the dollar is so depressed now. Though, I would accept Yen for my seeds,

Mediterranean money, German Marks, or Sumerian or Arian dinars.

If you know what I mean!

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

ahem, Zak?
sorry to be the one to burst your bubble… but… Deutsche Mark? it's over! the Euro has been forced upon us in 2002 (or was it 2001?…) 

I was against that, too, but, seedless to say, nobody listened back then either! ;)
sigh.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Seeds

Seeds of spring will blossom until they turn into the scourge of the cool nights of winter

Will they spread along the emotions of the lower mind, until thy become bitter pills of the heart

Encompass our destiny and make us all, campaign managers, and politicians of the spirit

Become another low brow or another currency of the soul, debasing, lowering the spirit to the heights of folly

If so, Hillary beacons, Obama listens, Edwards howls, the others cry out:

What about me! Where are my seeds?

Should not though, we seek the hidden seeds of the heart, that when sprouted, never fail, never stop, until, all are fed, the children stop weeping, the young warriors stop dying,  and we all sing, like the great King:

MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY OF THE COMING OF THE LORD

zaK

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hi folks,

with Siona's permission, I'll share a z-mail exchange with you all that helped to clear up a big misunderstanding between us.  Like Savitri and many others, I assumed that we are dealing with a typical corporate behemoth intent on making money, regardless of the human toll.

Apparently, this is not the case with zaadz.

This is part of what I wrote:

Dear Siona,

you know what tripped me up? My tendency to over-estimate people's superior knowledge and far-sightedness. It was hard to believe that the Gaiam CEO and board of directors (whoever they are) were launching a new feature without fully researching & testing beforehand what effects it would have on the community or discussing how to sell its merits to the public. So, what happened is that a lot of us thought you guys were putting a spin on it, deliberately playing dumb and so on… Well, you know all the accusations.

It is hard to believe for someone who has worked in the entertainment industry that the zaadz team might actually be INNOCENT, not out to screw us (the writers) to make more $$$ off our backs.

My turn to be puzzled, amazed.

As my friend Scottish Liz said the other day: My flabber is gasted!

Strength to y'all, cyber warriors,

m

Siona's reply:

Oh, wow.

Now I'm laughing.

I don't think the CEO and board has any clue about what happened here. We've got pretty much free rein; we happily went along with the acquisition because Gaiam's CEO (who's a wonderful idealist) wanted to grow a 'Gaia Community'–a world-wide community committed to relocalization and sustainability–and when we heard the scope of the project we left *such* alignment with it, and eagerly came on board.

For the time being, we've been left to our own devices, and I don't think we're really on the board's radar, which is probably a good thing, given that we're obviously still muddling along as we grow. :)

Phew. Thank you again. That helps SO much. Mascha… you can only imagine what it's been like for the our team, watching wide-eyed as this deluge unfolds. (What have we done?!? We meant so well!) This perspective… it's like oh, NOW I understand.

So if there's any desire to make money–at least as far as I'm concerned!–it's to keep this community alive and sparkling. Whether it's through ad sales or subscriptions I don't reallly care; I just want to protect all our members and keep this site the wonderful place it is.

I'm grinning now, though. THANK YOU. Yesterday was a little rough.

Siona

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Thanks, Mascha. For the record, I never doubted your intentions one bit. I just felt the need to defend the hard work that goes into this place.

Liz

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hey Mascha, are you the Hillary Clinton of Zaadz?

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Oh, you bad, bad seed! (swats Zakariyya) Check my status bar to find out what I am.

Having said that, I still think what old pros like TextMage warn about further up in this thread should have been considered before launching this (((THING)))

Demon seed. Will live and learn,

m

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

That's a good post, BUT:

What we critics don't realize( and I am not enamored of this myself) is the fact that we are in no position to really make a sound judgment of this situation simply because we aren't exposed to all what goes on in zaadz. We don't see their more broad perspective, therefore our judgment lacks facts. That though should not be a hindrance to being against this on our own level(which is legitimate to us) but we should have empathy for the hierarchy, as Liz points out, not as any kind of loyalty exclusively, but as existentially understanding their higher perspective in the matter. Though quinessentially we have every right to be against this.

Zak

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Mascha? Liz? I'm all teary eyed over this, both from grinning and gratitude.

Thank you, both. Hugely.

And yes. To living and learning. I'm just glad to have such awesome companions through it all.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

First of all, Zaadz Team, I applaud your initiative, your creativity and your boldness. Even more, how awesome to see you so actively engage in this public discussion. Egad!

As I recall, a prime intention of this site is to promote change for the better. Well, I am witnessing your efforts with the Seed Bank.

I arrived to the table a little late, so I missed the “bad” seeds…nonetheless, what I appreciate from my initial take on the program is the opportunity to express gratitude for members of our community.  However, I will admit an earlier post gave me reason to pause when it questioned whether we want to have speedy ways for folks to participate. Still, I support your finding more ways for us to share good will and support.

Perhaps you could say more, if you have not already, about why it is a called a “Trust” system. I could go either way on that word. I am curious to know what your intentions are in using it.

As for suggestions for effective monitoring, well, seems that you were on the right track before. Besides, since the Internet is such an unwieldy ever-changing glob, my bet is that multiple means of monitoring will continue to be the way to go. There simply may not be one, easy tool to get the job done. Plus, ask questions of the community, listen, reflect and review. Continue to build trust. Then, at the end of the day, speak your truth even when it is it was a corporate decision.

Overall, my sense is that our world has need for lots more good. With respect, I humbly suggest that as you continue to progress, there is the chance a few more eggs will be laid–possibly even bigger than this one–if you can imagine! Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to not hit either extreme but to broadly play the middle while being responsive with an eye to our future.

In my experience, to make big change, we must risk big mistakes. [Although, in truth I don't believe this was a mistake, more like a stepping stone towards further greatness.]

Bright Moments,
Umoja

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

Hi everyone,

First I want to start with where I first came upon the thought processes that are related to community and us and the idea of self government: I was on zaadz, trying to learn some stuff, and recieved what was not information and felt like something very ugly. Was it ugly? I dunno… what’s ugly? but at the time, it felt really like there was some nasty intent from someone calling himself enlightened. I’m not saying anything about this person and their relationship with all that is, that’s not my concern nor anything I can really know. All I know is that the actions I saw were out of step with everything I’ve come to know was true, and seemed able to actually do a lot of harm to people: it seems in retrospect had I responded differently than I did, the “dark night of the soul” was a possible reaction: where-in: you realize unity, but something happens and you’re back in a state of separation, and understanding that suffering is somewhat conditional makes it that much worse. All data I’ve seen (and yeah, I’m new at this still) suggests this condition is really horrible. And so I wonder: has that happened to anyone else? Did they make different choices than me, when in this stimulus, and suffer as a result of something that transpired on Zaadz?

For me, THAT almost made me leave the community. Because when we’re talking about issues that due to the way humans work are so sensitive and delicate, if there’s no community self-governing whatsoever, it’s just wrong. And if one were to ask, do I trust moderators to do such things? My answer is a resounding no, because then it becomes about power, or ‘control’ in the hands of few. We can’t have seven people saying: “I’m sorry, this post is bad.” And there is no bad– so what do we do?

Because of all that, I actually liked the seed system, although I was very hesitant at first about the negative seeds. I like it because no one gets kicked out, but if someone decides for whatever reason to call themselves an authority on matters of the spirit (an insane idea in and of itself) and then uses this “authority” in ways inconsistant with what people who come to Zaadz are asking for, and there are literally no signs that this person might not be the one to talk to– then every member of the community, to me, has failed that person. It was like being blindsided when, in my perception based reality, this happened to me. Like crossing an intersection during a green light– bam! mac truck. And I was fine, but what if somebody wasn’t fine?

And that’s a huge responsibility. But if WE can’t trust eachother with such responsibility, what hope do we have? Seriously.

Not saying it’s the best system. If it were up to a vote, I don’t know what I’d say, but so much is going on in this discussion (and I skimed a bit, so if I missed something important, correct me) it might be useful to pare it down into opposites. We’re seeing:

Communal governing system vs. no governing system vs. moderators (representative or draconian governing system, depending)

negative seeds: ok? or like high school?

Can we trust eachother not to make this suck?

Etc.

But I think this discussion is well-focused on the question: what is a community, and what must happen inside of it in order to make sure it functions? Just becuase the old system wasn’t crashing doesn’t mean it was ideal. As I said, I had a problem with it. I love this discussion, as I believe if we all engage in it, it will lead to something new coming that will be better. And I thank the mods for coming up with the seed system, if nothing else than for being a “seed-pod” for whatever we, as a community, come up with.

Re: The New Seed Bank Idea Is a Big Mistake

I want to thank the team for having changed the “bad seed” feature.

I’m still not hot about this feature though. If I get it right, the main motivation behind creating such a system is to regulate trolls (extreme situations) and bad behaviours (less extreme).

I still don’t really get how this feature will help the community to regulate bad behaviours. I think the dark side of such a feature is to important: I think it will tend to foster banality as I’ve stated earlier.

Anyway, my main question now is the following: if the Zaadz team is giving us a tool to self regulate bad behaviours and the like, I also think that we as a community should think and developp a tool that is original, creative and up the the high ideals we have.

What I’m saying is this: if the Zaadz team tells us that they want to empower our community, that we are Zaadz, then there is now a confusion: the seed system is a self regulating tool that is imposed on us. There is a double bind here:
- if we are the community, and if the Zaadz team want to empower us, then we should , as a community developp ourselves, with the Zaadz team a regulating tool.
- But you cannot use a language of “empowering” “you are the community” and impose a system like that.
- or: impose the seed system, but be clear in the words you use and say “it is like that…point”.

So my suggestion is the following:

We could organize a task force of Zaadz members and Team members interested in the subject and their goal would be to come up with a self regulating system that would be then applied. This could take a few months, but that could be a creative and fabulous endeavour.

If we really are Zaadz, and the goal is really to create a community that is different, then let us be bold and act differently than other communities on the web.

That would light my fire!!! Otherwise, I think Zaadz will simply be another community, that has high ideals, but is, fundamentally not really different than other on the web.

Hope to seed you soon,

Patrick

Seeds to spread love

Siona,
Mostly I imagined no malice when I first encountered the seeds. After all, the listing of “views” is as much signifiying popularity as anything.
    However, I do find something offensive about the fact that I can only give seeds to people who have blogged, and therefore I have commented on. I should be able to use my seeds to give “Big Love” to a new member, or someone who has not become very active yet….just spread the Love around!…
   A change please?
Thank you,
CG