What kind of threshold should a vote have to pass before being implemented? Do we really want to be making changes based on a vote that only got one “Aye”? Ten Ayes? Over 50% of the user base?
What kind of vote engagement can we reasonably expect to achieve? Is it actually likely that 50% of the user base will engage with any particular vote? Are there any useful presidents out there?
Who should be responsible for counting the votes when they’re over? Perhaps the OP tallies the votes and edits the post?
Is there an easy test the mods can apply to a tallied vote to allow them to check whether it’s passed? Something that is not open to interpretation and results in a clear directive to make a change?
I’m also kind of testing out this discussion format as a way of generating things to vote on i.e DISCUSSION > POLL > VOTE seems to make sense.
We’ll see :)
You must log in or register to comment.
The current aye/nay system is cluttered and clunky. How about we allow comments in [discussion] posts and then have a separate [vote] post with a single comment for each option so people can choose up/down/abstain? Then nobody has to count anything, human or bot, or worry about typos, formatting, sarcasm, etc.
I also propose a minimum of 3 days, maximum of 1 week per each [vote], no time limits for discussion. You can choose when to start the official [vote] after discussion starts.
I like the idea of using lemmy’s builtin voting mechanism.
I think for yes or no voting questions, it would be simplest to express all options with a single comment that is an affirmative statement on whatever is up for vote. Then each user action (pressing the upvote button, pressing the downvote button, or reading the post and pressing no button) maps exactly onto the vote a person casts.
I think this would be useful too, but currently that way of voting raises the issue that anyone outside this instance could vote on that issue as well and there would be no way of determining how many up/down/abstain votes came from users of this instance alone. A bot that could filter users of this instance would solve that though. If a separate community was created solely for voting (as opposed to discussion), there might be a way to make it private for users of this instance which could solve the problem also.
I think the vote posts might be better off in their own community outside the agora, like c/pollingplace or something. Discussions and topics that meet a threshold here are moved to that community and voting goes for a week. Each week the current slate of pending votes is posted and voting can occur with upvotes and downvotes on an aye, nay, and abstention comments inside the post.
Can a mod/admin/whatever pull who upvoted what? Somehow Lemmy is tracking it since it knows what you’ve upvoted. But it might make sense for the first couple of votes to do some real data analysis on them (who/what instances, age of account, average post quantity voted which way) to determine an algorithm that minimizes brigading while allowing everyone a voice.
Can a mod/admin/whatever pull who upvoted what?
This will make or break this proposal if we want to limit based on sh.itjust.works users, account age, etc. If that exists, it sounds like a great option to me.
I think that [discussion] preceding [vote] makes good sense. I’d add that [vote] posts should link to their respective [discussion] posts.
I just want to express that I’d like to see more rules around what constitutes a legit vote, and a better format for voting than a stream of ‘ayes’ and ‘nays’ comments (many people just upvote the first ‘aye’ and consider that vote).
I like the discussion > poll > vote mechanic you described. Maybe poll and vote are the same step though?
Thinking about it, if we get a proper polling system in place, that solves the issue of tons of Ayes and Nays and also additional up/down voting.
I had considered voting to be a single issue topic with a binary y/n outcome, with polling used to refine ideas, but there’s no reason you couldn’t have polling also be single issue but with multiple outcomes.
That way you can use the polling system to get feedback on potential voting topics and also for the vote itself.
Having a secret ballot is my only concern
I’m doubtful a quorum of 50% would happen, I imagine the majority of users will not participate in voting. I think if we set that as the threshold, nothing would ever get done. We might as well shutter the community. Maybe that many would vote if it were a defederation issue, but I still doubt it.
I think the proposer should tally votes. It should be easy to check the OPs math and bring up any discrepancies.
I like the discussion-> poll -> vote idea, but I’m not sure if most proposals will be large enough to require it.
Finally what about time limits? I’ve seen others says votes should be up for 3 days, or even 7 days which seems like a lot to me.
Regarding timescales, I added this to your other post but I think that would be perfect for testing out polling.
Hows that going to work anyway? There’s no native poll option is there?
I’m thinking we need a bot to handle all this. Check for quorum, track vote timelines, tally votes after it closes, administer polls, probably other stuff I’m missing
Yeah, a few people have mentioned this and it would seem to make sense.
There are a few Lemmy bots on GitHub https://github.com/topics/lemmy-bot, I guess that would need involvement from the mods.
Is there something that handles nuanced option taking? like more than 2 options … like i suggested in a separate comment, systemic consensing?
We need to construct a vote ballot, then use up voting on the options you approve of.
This is approval voting and has excellent behaviors compared to most other voting systems
Ideally, voting would happen in a community that only allows local users to subscribe or vote.
If that’s not possible in Lemmy, at the moment, something with access to the database could do the checking and report the results, I think.
Actually, i like weighted disapproval voting, because it counteracts mob approval following (better word?) to some extent. People are incentivised to think about how much any option (and there could be silly ones just for the sake of it) would go against their favours. I’d consider it intellectually mature if people could collectively establish such a system. But doesn’t look like it …
One thing that would be nice to have is a “neutral/abstine” vote. While this can be substituted by commenting, the latter would allow double voting.
