Literally how. There is nothing undemocratic about this. Was the old “ban rain” poll undemocratic too? The mods were essentially voted in, everyone loves them, and if enough people said they were abusive they would probably step down/be removed
Are you anti-meritocracy? You said before doctors should have precedence over freshman nurses did you not? People who are objectively better than others (ignoring things that don’t display actual value like amount of money etc) are better than others biologically, and in the minds of other hold more value. An ugly person will always be viewed in a more negative light than an attractive one upon first meetings. Its a completely natural and essentially unpreventable psychological trait that essentially all people are born with and is unpreventable. In any ANY society you create these natural biases will exist and will prevail.
But you haven’t actually solved anything. You said that to appease the masses, how say, panem et circenses? You say you’re promoting people to the same level of power as you, but we both know that’s a lie. You still make the final decision, and most importantly, you still retain the power to ban and kick people from your server.
And by telling people that
You essentially said, in a nice way. “If you don’t like my server then you can fuck off and make your own.”
And
And so you’ve encountered one of the leader’s dilemmas. Do you ensure that the server is running smoothly, or do you appease the masses? Because you can’t have both, and you sure as hell can’t make everyone happy.
Sure, if you made a silly democracy with no commonsense rules in place. Similarly, earlier people complained Borda Count voting was crappy, but if you change it a bit, its better.
Just because a bunch of people came together and agreed on something doesn’t mean they’re right.
How would you know I dont want that?
I really dont.
Sure you could call it an illusion because Discord and other similar services are setup to be in an inherently authoritarian, strict top-down hierarchy power structures, and there can only be one “true” owner. But I’d really rather lay back and let people figure things out for themselves.
Of course, I could teach them things, but just because I enforce a certain law or way upon them doesn’t mean they’ll follow it, or etc. The law is meant to be broken, and I’d have nothing to gain by artificially creating or enforcing laws, or holding artificial power with artificial illusions. The entire point of Anarchy is to stop this sort of oppressive hierarchies.
Sure, like most nations of the world.
ah yes but I specifically said
so I wont bother putting out my opinion
I’m extremely meritocratic. That really doesn’t have much to do with democracy. Democracies dont put people in power based on merit, they put people in power based on how good they are at getting votes.
I mean, it wasn’t bait if I am more than happy to talk about it. Thats why I made the post… to discuss the bot and democracy. If anyone wants to suggest or explain a new idea to me, then go ahead. But no need for people to get aggressive or off-topic into other crazy things. Or, really furthermore switching my topic from community to memes, when this was supposed to be an actually serious discussion.
answered this earlier
our server*
Do you go with the majority vote, even if it is wrong? This is literally just a populist question. lol
to get a bit more on-topic, heres how the old democratic system worked -
Vote is created. People vote on it. 80% or more approval gets it approved. 20% or lower gets denied. If inbetween, vote stays open. The point of such high approval ratings is to get everyone fully educated and understanding of the subject rather than casting one silly vote and not actually looking into or putting thought into the vote.
But certain people did not like this, so eventually the %'s got reduced so low that it was 50%, and to make matters worse they justified it with “making votes speedy” and all votes had to win/loose within 3 days.
Initially, if a vote was stuck forever in the limbo zone, the %'s would get lower and lower until its 40% or lower and 60% or higher. From there, the higher ups would vote on the issue, since its so dividing. Usually we had an odd amount of higher ups, so there was always a choice, no tie.
Who decides what’s right and wrong? Everyone has their own ideas and reasons for thinking if something’s moral or legal or if it isn’t, but which person is made of a finer clay than the rest of us people and gets to have their personal truth be the truth? Aren’t they just as prone to bias and wrongdoing as the rest of us?
…Social skills, which are the most important merit…
“Smartness” is way too broad of a term to be applicable or relevant. The most important merits are social skills, and most merits also play into social skills, as it is essentially the end all be all and in most conditions is the only thing that really matters, hence why sociopaths make it so far in all manners of society no matter what, and why narcissists usually fail because they have troubles backing down and etc
when you’re just here to criticise flawed voting systems but the argument turns into whether Athens was a true democracy
Back to the original argument. Borda count, like many other systems, is still heavily prone to tactical voting which if the people participating in the democracy find out about, would lead to the results not being democratic anymore and people would try to game the system. Even though a Condorcet method is indeed significantly more complicated, the thing to remember is that it’d be automated. The ONLY Borda count method I’d ever consider using is Nanson’s method which will elect the Condorcet winner.
Secondly, liquid democracy sounds kinda useless. Why would someone want to give their votes to someone? Is it because they’re too lazy to vote themselves? This whole ‘liquid democracy’ thing is going to add a bunch of complication for a system I doubt many people would use.
My main question is: why and what for? The start lays out that it’s for questions by… normal users? It makes no sense. Wouldn’t a system where it’s staff (or an elected council which would definitely be a cool idea) putting the questions out be better because the votes would actually affect something?
Mods can purge all reactions, yes, but not individual ones. That’d be a neat feature.
I am not aware of any bots that do that, so absolve me of my ignorcance if you would and link me one that does.
You paying him once for rights does not quote to wage slavery in my book.
Chances are he won’t do it for free, but might as well try.
Did you… watch the video provided in the document that completely explains why Liquid Democracy would be good?
Because not everyone is awake 24/7 or at their computer everyday or so on. Why do you think people dont do Direct Democracy in real life, despite having all this technology to instantly transfer knowledge, assuming this is the biggest problem with DD? The logistical problems of Athens of getting a bunch of people in one place makes sense, but we no longer have that problem do we?
They wont always be there to vote, so they can give their vote to someone else, for them to vote on their behalf. This is much better than voting for other people and having them tell us what we want. If some has similar views to you, then just hand your vote to them for when you’re away.
And sure, this could very well be the case. We will have probably on average three votes a day, whether big or small. Thats a lot of reading, and equal amounts of thought should be put into each vote. That takes a lot of time, pondering, critical thinking, and maybe not everyone wants to participate in that, but rather than forfeiting all of their democratic power, they’d let someone do it for them, that they trust to make the decisions on their behalf.
The LD is way easier to implement code-wise than the Borda Count. You literally just hand a vote to a user, and that users vote technically is multiplied by two, and your done. Voter-wise, its much more conveinent. All they have to do is pick a candidate they like (if any) to trust their vote with. If they decide to manually vote on a particular topic that is important to them, then they can do that.
Bigger and more important votes would have more individuals voting, while smaller everyday votes would have candidates mostly. But if at any time users wanted to Unionize and call for Direct Action, then they could always Directly vote on their own behalf. Thats why LD is great.
A system where staff putting questions out. What…? That made no sense. Please enlighten me.
What do you think that little X next to every persons name is for? Just aesthetics?
This is a bot that you get roles by reacting to things. It has a feature where you can only react to one role, and if you choose another on the same message it does exactly what I said. gee.
Soooooooorta ironic that democratically elected moderators innocently just happen to not know how they could rig elections by simply removing some emotes.
Was just joking. but I mean I’d still have to pay him more to add more features. I wouldn’t want to brand it as “mine”, I’d rather just use his content as his content. idk seems better.
If I could convince him that the bot would be very popular, then maybe he’d accept that as alternative payment, whether he would exploit popularity for fame, money, or attracting more people asking for bot commissions.
I stand corrected, I literally did not know that.
But yes, we do actually run the server democratcially and don’t just go “lol elections are canceled” like you did. Part of the point is to allow the pople to vote for tjhings you don’t like, but I did not expect you to grasp that.
“Do it for the exposure lol”
You either pay him in money, or you’ll have to risk him “exploting” the “exposure” you gave him.
but I mean I’d still have to pay him more to add more features. I wouldn’t want to brand it as “mine”, I’d rather just use his content as his content. idk seems better.