Loony postchatter groups
(Ideas, Design directions, Rule candidates)
< PRE-DRAFT+ >
Interacting in multi-peer online Groups has become time-wasting bullshit, with no end in sight. You will try hard but rarely get a point across to anyone. Virtual sociality that seemed exciting in 2015 demonstrably doesn't meet the day's needs. Per-manual use of Capitalism's finest platforms, as well as their cargo-culted clones, is more often than not a burden, rewarding you with no or trivial results. (While being pretty good at mass producing the boring type of psychopaths).
How about a loony, collaborative, peer imaginarium of Post-chatter groups to disorder and dissarrange this!
Revisions:
20200914 pass#1
20201004 pass#2 (now doing)
Table of Contents
¶(Make this now!)
Strive to implementation, aka a "prototype" or "minimum viable product":
1) by hijacking dumb oldschool platforms with eclectic hacks:
(facebook groups, loomio, telegram groups, etc)
2) by forming vanguard subgroups:
2A) "scouting subgroup":
researching and hosting and documenting what's out there
2B) "experimental subgroup":
trying the patterns out
3) finally, drawing people in
4) failing but learning:
4A) archiving the contents in a sensible way, keep them alive and referencable (and maybe one day, imported, collated and revisited)
4B) documenting what worked & what failed - at least trying to:
* keep continuity with past reflections
* collect a widest possible variety and diversity of perspectives
4C) reshuffling the group, and group roles
5) trying again
Strive to implementation, aka a "prototype" or "minimum viable product":
1) by hijacking dumb oldschool platforms with eclectic hacks:
(facebook groups, loomio, telegram groups, etc)
2) by forming vanguard subgroups:
2A) "scouting subgroup":
researching and hosting and documenting what's out there
2B) "experimental subgroup":
trying the patterns out
3) finally, drawing people in
4) failing but learning:
4A) archiving the contents in a sensible way, keep them alive and referencable (and maybe one day, imported, collated and revisited)
4B) documenting what worked & what failed - at least trying to:
* keep continuity with past reflections
* collect a widest possible variety and diversity of perspectives
4C) reshuffling the group, and group roles
5) trying again
¶(... encourage fully developing positions as independent posts, not chatter)
Conversational comments must have a limited length.
If more extensive, a comment should be edited to point to a pad/blog post:
given the length, there is obviously something valuable being said - either existing and referenceable, or novel and valuable to explicate
(every longer post needs an TLDR/abstract, as well)
In addition, long post form should allow for... :
arguments to be CAREFULLY developed, according to different criteria than mere comments,
peer-review with others before and after release,
co-authoring and continous improvement (to improve their quality),
and keep them referenceable, for future use.
"""
#PROPOSAL:
My personal view is that these kind of comments are simply too long.
I would limit the maximum length of a comment to about half that length.
Anything else I would encourage peers to:
write into documents,
CAREFULLY develop their arguments, according to different criteria than mere comments,
peer-review them with others before releasing,
keep them co-authorable (to improve their quality),
and keep them referenceable, for future use.
"""
Conversational comments must have a limited length.
If more extensive, a comment should be edited to point to a pad/blog post:
given the length, there is obviously something valuable being said - either existing and referenceable, or novel and valuable to explicate
(every longer post needs an TLDR/abstract, as well)
In addition, long post form should allow for... :
arguments to be CAREFULLY developed, according to different criteria than mere comments,
peer-review with others before and after release,
co-authoring and continous improvement (to improve their quality),
and keep them referenceable, for future use.
¶(non-dominion over posts)
Including, but not limited to:
* posts splitting:
sometimes you can agree with some, but not other parts
includes cutting up longer posts, and delimiting/marking individual arguments
* re-levelling threads:
sub-threads would often make great main threads
Or maybe...
* fully abandoning the principle of authorship control:
perhaps all posts being fully-editable:
* by all friends / within same caucus
* by all with a reputation of edits "in good faith"
* by all (correcting for problems arrising of this later)
examples:
* clarity
* grounding references
* grammar and spelling development
* [...]
Measures to protect the integrity of the posts are carefully codified & solutionized - including full edit history, and signing/confirming changes by any party.
by non-cargo cult group tech.
Including, but not limited to:
* posts splitting:
sometimes you can agree with some, but not other parts
includes cutting up longer posts, and delimiting/marking individual arguments
* re-levelling threads:
sub-threads would often make great main threads
Or maybe...
* fully abandoning the principle of authorship control:
perhaps all posts being fully-editable:
* by all friends / within same caucus
* by all with a reputation of edits "in good faith"
* by all (correcting for problems arrising of this later)
examples:
* clarity
* grounding references
* grammar and spelling development
* [...]
Measures to protect the integrity of the posts are carefully codified & solutionized - including full edit history, and signing/confirming changes by any party.
¶(keep eyes on REALWORLD ACTION, not CHATTER)
Talking is ok, but ACTION is really important.
Groups needs to produce:
* commonly written manifestos/charters
* ... encouraging their support, and implementation
* sharing and coordinating on resources
* [...]
In short: real-world effects for real people.
Talking is ok, but ACTION is really important.
Groups needs to produce:
* commonly written manifestos/charters
* ... encouraging their support, and implementation
* sharing and coordinating on resources
* [...]
In short: real-world effects for real people.
¶(collaboratively encode & evolve common communication)
Establish a set of collaborative documents, to develop & upgrade standards on:
* Protocols:
to support and guide the basic, and also totally custom, playful interaction patterns
based on a meta-protocol (top-level protocol about protocols)
* Vocabulary, terminology:
Don't let people bash eachother with under-defined clusterfuck terms.
(anti-examples: "X is woke", "the left wants to do Y", etc.)
* Syntax, symbols, rhetorics:
establishing hacks that extend the base functionality of the platform
(example ↓)
Have a special, vigilant moderation group, helping to uphold & raise the common standards.
Establish a set of collaborative documents, to develop & upgrade standards on:
* Protocols:
to support and guide the basic, and also totally custom, playful interaction patterns
based on a meta-protocol (top-level protocol about protocols)
* Vocabulary, terminology:
Don't let people bash eachother with under-defined clusterfuck terms.
(anti-examples: "X is woke", "the left wants to do Y", etc.)
* Syntax, symbols, rhetorics:
establishing hacks that extend the base functionality of the platform
(example ↓)
Have a special, vigilant moderation group, helping to uphold & raise the common standards.
¶(upgrade oldschool platforms, with loony hacky syntax & protocols)
Example on Facebook Groups:
(Unlike on Reddit), you cannot TAG specific posts or replies,
giving clear semantic classification.
Example on Facebook Groups:
(Unlike on Reddit), you cannot TAG specific posts or replies,
giving clear semantic classification.
¶ →Decorate every thread with link to outside space
Where you can have additional insights, interactions, categorizations, etc.
Use this as a "gateway" escape.
this could be done auto by bots.
"""
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS "PARASITIC" WAY SHOULD SERIOUSLY BE CONSIDERED AS A GATEWAY MODEL
THE REASON IS THAT IT SHIFTS A PART OF THE POWER (AND DISCOURSE) OUTSIDE
SO PEOPLE HAVE INCENTIVE TO MOVE THERE, OR THEY ARE LEFT BEHIND
"""
Where you can have additional insights, interactions, categorizations, etc.
Use this as a "gateway" escape.
¶ →Strict reacts: Define the use and meaning of comment reacts
Express subjective value with strict reacts.
like = good:
"i am happy this is posted here."
"i read the comment and i acknowledge it."
<3 = very good:
"i reccomend it openly!"
"i actually read it and it provided value for me."
"i am responing to a call to action. i will participate in this, will respond to further coordination"
"i will watch over and support this contribution further"
anger = trash:
"this should not be here, and we should figure something out if we notice a pattern"
:D = bad logic alert:
"this is ridiculous"
"i don't agree at all"
"i recognize the irony/sarcasm"
:'( = something is wrong:
"frustrating?"
"should be rewritten?"
"has typos? has parts that make no sense?"
Express subjective value with strict reacts.
like = good:
"i am happy this is posted here."
"i read the comment and i acknowledge it."
<3 = very good:
"i reccomend it openly!"
"i actually read it and it provided value for me."
"i am responing to a call to action. i will participate in this, will respond to further coordination"
"i will watch over and support this contribution further"
anger = trash:
"this should not be here, and we should figure something out if we notice a pattern"
:D = bad logic alert:
"this is ridiculous"
"i don't agree at all"
"i recognize the irony/sarcasm"
:'( = something is wrong:
"frustrating?"
"should be rewritten?"
"has typos? has parts that make no sense?"
¶ →Establish a curated list of one-tag comment reacts
Collaboratively categorize based on a curated list of simple tags:
* one-tag only replies, establishing:
* relevance ("#offtopic", "#fake")
* topic ("#coop", "#representation", "#glocal", "#liberal")
* [...]
* ... assesed by reacts
* this makes them searchable (click will bring up others)
Collaboratively categorize based on a curated list of simple tags:
* one-tag only replies, establishing:
* relevance ("#offtopic", "#fake")
* topic ("#coop", "#representation", "#glocal", "#liberal")
* [...]
* ... assesed by reacts
* this makes them searchable (click will bring up others)
¶(future-proofing & "platform optimism")
Assume community will move on from oldschool platforms.
Reflect this in pre-empting use patterns (that will mean something, someday).
Examples ###
Assume community will move on from oldschool platforms.
Reflect this in pre-empting use patterns (that will mean something, someday).
¶(more than politeness of minimal commonality)
Groups need to have the ability to build commonality. Their activity needs to be looked at & assesed by that measure.
"Code of conducts" are a great and neccessary "step zero", but too often, that is the only common document.
That is considered under-ambitious in what could be / need to be commonly agreed-on goals, purpose/vision/mission, etc.
Examples:
* "depose capitalism"
* "save the whales"
* "leave facebook groups"
* "depose all right-wing governments in Europe"
* [...]
On top of an old-school platform...:
* this could be realized in a simple multi-choice poll, mandatory for newcomers.
* caucuses could take the role of arguing with them polemically, trying to line them in place
Groups need to have the ability to build commonality. Their activity needs to be looked at & assesed by that measure.
"Code of conducts" are a great and neccessary "step zero", but too often, that is the only common document.
That is considered under-ambitious in what could be / need to be commonly agreed-on goals, purpose/vision/mission, etc.
Examples:
* "depose capitalism"
* "save the whales"
* "leave facebook groups"
* "depose all right-wing governments in Europe"
* [...]
On top of an old-school platform...:
* this could be realized in a simple multi-choice poll, mandatory for newcomers.
* caucuses could take the role of arguing with them polemically, trying to line them in place
¶(have a newcomers protocol)
Above and beyond just the standard:
* "read the code of conduct"
* "answer this set of questions, based on which you would be accepted to the group"
... this can be extended to:
* ask to build a comprehensive personal profile
* establish links to other users
* [...]
###
Above and beyond just the standard:
* "read the code of conduct"
* "answer this set of questions, based on which you would be accepted to the group"
... this can be extended to:
* ask to build a comprehensive personal profile
* establish links to other users
* [...]
¶(build a useful network of peers / comrades )
Peers should... :
* intro themselves
* keep an updated profile so they can be utilized as allies
... so to offer each other real support, act like comrades:
* reproduce quality ready-made networks for visitors:
examples:
* Telekommunisten in Berlin
* CHT in Canaries
* [...]
* list and share property
* host eachother while they are in town
* [...]
Peers should... :
* intro themselves
* keep an updated profile so they can be utilized as allies
... so to offer each other real support, act like comrades:
* reproduce quality ready-made networks for visitors:
examples:
* Telekommunisten in Berlin
* CHT in Canaries
* [...]
* list and share property
* host eachother while they are in town
* [...]
¶(welcome non-human agents as helpers-curators)
Bots could help...:
* affinity mapping - making connections
* content auto-categorization - consolidating conversations
* argument/discourse mapping
* easy CoC and protocol enforcement
* identifying patterns of behaviour
* representing the less-visible
* [...]
Bots could help...:
* affinity mapping - making connections
* content auto-categorization - consolidating conversations
* argument/discourse mapping
* easy CoC and protocol enforcement
* identifying patterns of behaviour
* representing the less-visible
* [...]
¶(participate or leave - no lurkers)
Non-participation (lurking) is bannable.
If not producing, curating, or discussing content, at least react to it when you see it.
If you are not present at all, then you have no use in being in the group anyway.
This also:
* solves the problem of oldies domineering the discussion:
as they have to be welcoming, insofar as they really want the place to grow
* make member lists meaningful
* [...]
_____________________
"""
On lurkers.
Too much of online sociality has descended into a sickly telenovella, observation of others doing things.
I am not interested in participating in a group where some do not speak but only observe, at least for issues somehow decided as key.
Facebook Groups does not allow me to make obligatory polls (like Belgian elections for example, AFAIK).
There should be a protocol for setting up questions of mandatory participation (in whatever form)
"""
Non-participation (lurking) is bannable.
If not producing, curating, or discussing content, at least react to it when you see it.
If you are not present at all, then you have no use in being in the group anyway.
This also:
* solves the problem of oldies domineering the discussion:
as they have to be welcoming, insofar as they really want the place to grow
* make member lists meaningful
* [...]
_____________________
"""
On lurkers.
Too much of online sociality has descended into a sickly telenovella, observation of others doing things.
I am not interested in participating in a group where some do not speak but only observe, at least for issues somehow decided as key.
Facebook Groups does not allow me to make obligatory polls (like Belgian elections for example, AFAIK).
There should be a protocol for setting up questions of mandatory participation (in whatever form)
"""
¶(always re-forming: relate to & imitate other groups)
The loony postchatter communities systematically investigate historic and contemporary examples, and follow their dramaturgic leads.
The loony postchatter communities systematically investigate historic and contemporary examples, and follow their dramaturgic leads.
¶(diversity, but for real)
Representation needs to be taken seriously.
No, not just like this that "it's written down":
* the quotas are maybe weird and difficult,
* so is stalking and DMing unknown people, actively trying to bring them in to Build Representation
* even openly asking for comrades to bring their networks with them ...
* [...]
But something more than just posturing about creating and nice environment and "They will come" needs to be done.
___
So:
* study and adopt a code of conduct
* have a skilled group of moderators
* have a grievance process
* be informed by intersectionality
* take class into account
* develop processes that allow you to understand, appreciate and bridge unique experiences (resulting in opression, privilege, etc)
If the group is seen as or labelled as a kind of an echo chamber, then check:
* who is silent (or not) in the room, and why?
<- this is too basic and needs work but there are reasons why this happens (and research behind it) )
### bring it
* is everybody able to talk about their experiences?
* how can they be put into context with others?
* what are other sections and identities we've never talked about (...because the whole discourse is amerikan?)
* what directions are relations moving towards, and at what speed?
* what are our opponents fears?
* [...]
___
But also, somehow, this should someday be organic, and fun.
Representation needs to be taken seriously.
No, not just like this that "it's written down":
* the quotas are maybe weird and difficult,
* so is stalking and DMing unknown people, actively trying to bring them in to Build Representation
* even openly asking for comrades to bring their networks with them ...
* [...]
But something more than just posturing about creating and nice environment and "They will come" needs to be done.
___
So:
* study and adopt a code of conduct
* have a skilled group of moderators
* have a grievance process
* be informed by intersectionality
* take class into account
* develop processes that allow you to understand, appreciate and bridge unique experiences (resulting in opression, privilege, etc)
If the group is seen as or labelled as a kind of an echo chamber, then check:
* who is silent (or not) in the room, and why?
* is everybody able to talk about their experiences?
* how can they be put into context with others?
* what are other sections and identities we've never talked about (...because the whole discourse is amerikan?)
* what directions are relations moving towards, and at what speed?
* what are our opponents fears?
* [...]
___
But also, somehow, this should someday be organic, and fun.
¶(community self-defense)
Define, be vocal about, be vigilant to upkeep minimum hygiene requirements.
Don't get red-pilled.
Don't allow "devil's advocate" posting, sea-lioning, etc.
Define, be vocal about, be vigilant to upkeep minimum hygiene requirements.
Don't get red-pilled.
Don't allow "devil's advocate" posting, sea-lioning, etc.
¶(at least gesturally challenge capitalist day to day bullshit, like personal money)
Because personal money is bullshit, so will be the group members:
the group should be able to atleast performatively play ("tinker") with applying these kind of concepts,
so perhaps:
have a membership (except if you say you are broke),
and then we all figure out where to put that cash
Because personal money is bullshit, so will be the group members:
the group should be able to atleast performatively play ("tinker") with applying these kind of concepts,
so perhaps:
have a membership (except if you say you are broke),
and then we all figure out where to put that cash
¶(what's up with poster authorship, identity, cliques, reputation etc?)
Identity of posters is kind of lame, why is it even important?
:
it might:
* make it easier to "continue on a debate", or establish
* [...]
anyway at least sometimes (maybe randomly) it could:
* just not be there
* or be unreliable
<-------------- (NOW) $$$
Identity of posters is kind of lame, why is it even important?
:
it might:
* make it easier to "continue on a debate", or establish
* [...]
anyway at least sometimes (maybe randomly) it could:
* just not be there
* or be unreliable
¶(minimize time-wasting by all means)
* people there are allies (at least in original affinity), so they should not waste each other's time:
meaning brevity is important
----------------------------
* that is not easier for some than others, and again these roles can be shared:
(abandon "authorship" in good faith)
others should be able to jump in
* people there are allies (at least in original affinity), so they should not waste each other's time:
meaning brevity is important
----------------------------
* that is not easier for some than others, and again these roles can be shared:
(abandon "authorship" in good faith)
others should be able to jump in
¶(conclude chatter into useful outcomes by last-mile work)
* the "community" mandates and employs somebody to do their "last-mile" work
* assemble the rants
* ask additional questions
* bring the material into some form where it goes beyond just chatter, but:
* a collected book
* almanac
* tactical manual
* systematic lists
* legal proposals
* [...]
* the "community" mandates and employs somebody to do their "last-mile" work
* assemble the rants
* ask additional questions
* bring the material into some form where it goes beyond just chatter, but:
* a collected book
* almanac
* tactical manual
* systematic lists
* legal proposals
* [...]
¶(posts bad, binding proposals good)
* don't make "posts" with "interesting" "content", make:
* BINDING PROPOSALS
------------
examples:
* a "commons primer for a city"? it should be adopted there, and everywhere
* we dont have the time? put it on our todo list
* don't make "posts" with "interesting" "content", make:
* BINDING PROPOSALS
------------
examples:
* a "commons primer for a city"? it should be adopted there, and everywhere
* we dont have the time? put it on our todo list
¶(banish culture of "easy non-engagement" ignorance)
it's way too easy to:
* weasel out of an argument by ignoring parts of it
* send a message by not participating (but having before taken space in a structure)
include: ### d's post on p2p left
----------
also banish "controlling the conversation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM
it's way too easy to:
* weasel out of an argument by ignoring parts of it
* send a message by not participating (but having before taken space in a structure)
----------
also banish "controlling the conversation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM
¶(fragment groups to get coverage)
* understand that different configurations of loony dramaturgic puzzles will attract & alienate different people in different ways
... so develop "cousin communities"
* understand that different configurations of loony dramaturgic puzzles will attract & alienate different people in different ways
... so develop "cousin communities"
¶(appropriate/re-appropriate strategies)
spawn gateway hybrid communities
appropriate red-pilling
appropriate raids, etc
spawn gateway hybrid communities
appropriate red-pilling
appropriate raids, etc
¶(remember why we are online)
A) we are only hanging out online because we can't hang out in real life
B) in some ways, online is different and can add to real life
C) [...]
###
A) we are only hanging out online because we can't hang out in real life
B) in some ways, online is different and can add to real life
C) [...]
###
¶(reproducible and linkable polemics)
debates should provide something that is modular and exogenous
###
debates should provide something that is modular and exogenous
###
¶(weave full history of debates)
* search should be integrated into post writing, so that past threads will show up:
there is nothing wrong with old threads
* search should be integrated into post writing, so that past threads will show up:
there is nothing wrong with old threads
¶(posting limits)
[this is from a real carcrash listserv attempt to establish rules]:
each person can only post twice on a thread and
the second post has be half the length of the first
[this is from a real carcrash listserv attempt to establish rules]:
each person can only post twice on a thread and
the second post has be half the length of the first
¶(tag links)
[something about the quality of the links - they need to be tagged, like:]
source tag:
* mass media,
* gurus we really like and no one else does,
* koch-funded denial that we can't remove because then it's against "free speech"
* "you're gonna hate this one"
[something about the quality of the links - they need to be tagged, like:]
source tag:
* mass media,
* gurus we really like and no one else does,
* koch-funded denial that we can't remove because then it's against "free speech"
* "you're gonna hate this one"
¶(against "devil's advocate" posts)
"devil's advocate" posts have easy tag options available :
* "I didn't read what you wrote but hate it anyway"
* "please read this, I don't think you've considered this example"
* [...]
"devil's advocate" posts have easy tag options available :
* "I didn't read what you wrote but hate it anyway"
* "please read this, I don't think you've considered this example"
* [...]
¶(acknowledge time & prevent attrition)
(tags?)
"that dude has way too much time and dominates the whole contents and direction of conversation "
(tags?)
"that dude has way too much time and dominates the whole contents and direction of conversation "
¶(call-in/tag people, projects, other threads)
:
* "I'd like to hear more from xxx who is working on this xxx"
* ... via boost from an invisible sub-thread, with some help of others interested
:
* "I'd like to hear more from xxx who is working on this xxx"
* ... via boost from an invisible sub-thread, with some help of others interested
¶(### ???)
* regular polls
when I wrote this, I meant
* regular polls
when I wrote this, I meant
- a) [the marketing thing]
- b) [what I'm trying to say but isn't coming across],
- c) [redpilled SJW woke-hate phrase],
- d) (mass media diluted meaningless meaning]...
¶(self and peer acceptance)
tags to identify myself with stuff I'm really embarrassed by IN MY PROPOSAL
tags to identify myself with stuff I'm really embarrassed by IN MY PROPOSAL
- (my struggle to escape capitalism)
- (my lacking of reading compared to what I think others have read)
- (my lack of technical and/or building and/or artistic skills)
- (my background in ...)
- (my lack of skills in ... and wish for knowledge about ...)
¶(express, and revisit, opinions)
loomio has this.
you should be able to specifically ask people to check their opinions.
loomio has this.
you should be able to specifically ask people to check their opinions.
¶(MVP: block everybody that kind of sucks. create block lists)
even the moderators!
dealing with toxicity is a *separate effort*, and you may unblock, or create another account, when you feel like doing that.
but recognising that toxicity draws you in, even though the measure is not perfect, it is probably closer to a productive in the current order of things.
as also seen on:
* "Hey, why don't we just block X in the group he admins? LOL!":
"A group member can block the group admin, but that member's group activity will still be visible to the admin."
* """Micha Narberhausi have personally blocked brent so i dont have to deal with his habitual toxicity. and i usually do that for people that regularly make personal attacks rather than complain to the admin about them. i can customize my p2p feed by decentralizing the authority and taking the power to banish into my own hands according to my own judgement. if everyone did that the worst offenders would be effectively marginalized without the central authority having to make the decision."""
(LOL)
even the moderators!
dealing with toxicity is a *separate effort*, and you may unblock, or create another account, when you feel like doing that.
but recognising that toxicity draws you in, even though the measure is not perfect, it is probably closer to a productive in the current order of things.
"A group member can block the group admin, but that member's group activity will still be visible to the admin."
¶(learn from "P2P" facebook groups fail)
related → 🔗for-michelbauwens
(a post about autocratic governance and purging by attrition, in a nominal p2p forum)
related → 🔗for-michelbauwens
(a post about autocratic governance and purging by attrition, in a nominal p2p forum)
¶(a cautionary tale from Bauwensology)
If dogs fight, they should either both be on, or off the leash!
And definitely NOT one dog holding both.
That is Bauwens, having radical opinions in P2P groups which were built up trusting him as a BDFL modrator, then he starts churning out Peterson, anti-BLM, anti-Social justice, TERF etc arguments, and everybody fighting him is driven out by attrition.
"""
[roughly: I spent time developing my point, sparring with Bauwens, then we we got close, he ignored me]
You're def onto something there. A few of us are already figuring out his way. He will engage you vehemently - because he's on paid time. ###allusion to hefty speaker fees###
:
* ... He will distract from the argument 2-3 times, enough for most to make the mistake.
(I was trained enough professionally for seeing it, my instincts coming back.)
* If you don't hang yourself onto the rope he's passing you, surely he has attracted some of his goons into the thread. Their function is further attrition of you, you can also make mistakes there
* If you still don't fuck up, the thread by this point is a shitshow. He is engaging in 5 frontiers and can lightheartedly skip the 1 or 2 that got close
Arguing Bauwens is like a fucking claw machine, you can't win the car, and if you do, they'll think of something to kick you out.
........ The trick of course is, he can only do this on his territory. He is as much a prisoner of this system as we the rest are.
He needs to quit and become a fucking normal peer, so we can all trash at it together. #FREEBAUWENS
"""
If dogs fight, they should either both be on, or off the leash!
And definitely NOT one dog holding both.
That is Bauwens, having radical opinions in P2P groups which were built up trusting him as a BDFL modrator, then he starts churning out Peterson, anti-BLM, anti-Social justice, TERF etc arguments, and everybody fighting him is driven out by attrition.
"""
[roughly: I spent time developing my point, sparring with Bauwens, then we we got close, he ignored me]
You're def onto something there. A few of us are already figuring out his way. He will engage you vehemently - because he's on paid time. ###allusion to hefty speaker fees###
:
* ... He will distract from the argument 2-3 times, enough for most to make the mistake.
* If you don't hang yourself onto the rope he's passing you, surely he has attracted some of his goons into the thread. Their function is further attrition of you, you can also make mistakes there
* If you still don't fuck up, the thread by this point is a shitshow. He is engaging in 5 frontiers and can lightheartedly skip the 1 or 2 that got close
Arguing Bauwens is like a fucking claw machine, you can't win the car, and if you do, they'll think of something to kick you out.
........ The trick of course is, he can only do this on his territory. He is as much a prisoner of this system as we the rest are.
He needs to quit and become a fucking normal peer, so we can all trash at it together. #FREEBAUWENS
"""
¶(form caucuses/factions for issues. allow a form of "group" or "team" accounts, administered by several people)
have them form a senate.
have them confirm new caucuses in sensible ways.
"""
* People with similar beliefs could connect better
* represent a cause together as well.
* they could argue points together, decreasing attrition
* It would prevent attacks from being directed at individuals, but rather at factional lines.
* It would make it easier for people to count themselves as well.
* I would then also propose a "senate" of caucuses:
* which would make specific decisions,
* on some sort of an undetermined system of voting (probably 2/3 + veto).
"""
have them form a senate.
have them confirm new caucuses in sensible ways.
"""
* People with similar beliefs could connect better
* represent a cause together as well.
* they could argue points together, decreasing attrition
* It would prevent attacks from being directed at individuals, but rather at factional lines.
* It would make it easier for people to count themselves as well.
* I would then also propose a "senate" of caucuses:
* which would make specific decisions,
* on some sort of an undetermined system of voting (probably 2/3 + veto).
"""
¶(have a "court" - of complaints, accusations, grievances process.)
"""
One option I see is to keep collect dossiers about people.
I think accusations should never fall to the level of rumours or gossip to be trusted.
Something needs to be put forward.
The person should go through a process:
* a presentation of charge
* a way to redeem themselves
* and a clear outcome if they refuse to do so.
This would be supported by a mandate:
* both symbolic and representative - jury/admin voting, etc
"""
_________________
mechanisms like this should be financially offset
"""
I cannot be fucked to care to dig up quotes - I don't do this just for anyone
I think there should be a tribunal to perform this kind of labour and handle this kind of work, and definitely compensated.
"""
______________
Have strong protections against gossip in private.
Prevent social capital to dominate grievance procedures.
"""
Update: I didn't take @P2P_Foundation's @mbauwens for a gambler, but I thought he might have liked to make some easy money! Attention to all: His tactic is: Libel, never back it up with anything & retreat. Problem is, this can only work with social capital - and he's almost out.
"""
"""
One option I see is to keep collect dossiers about people.
I think accusations should never fall to the level of rumours or gossip to be trusted.
Something needs to be put forward.
The person should go through a process:
* a presentation of charge
* a way to redeem themselves
* and a clear outcome if they refuse to do so.
This would be supported by a mandate:
* both symbolic and representative - jury/admin voting, etc
"""
_________________
mechanisms like this should be financially offset
"""
I cannot be fucked to care to dig up quotes - I don't do this just for anyone
I think there should be a tribunal to perform this kind of labour and handle this kind of work, and definitely compensated.
"""
______________
Have strong protections against gossip in private.
Prevent social capital to dominate grievance procedures.
"""
Update: I didn't take @P2P_Foundation's @mbauwens for a gambler, but I thought he might have liked to make some easy money! Attention to all: His tactic is: Libel, never back it up with anything & retreat. Problem is, this can only work with social capital - and he's almost out.
"""
¶(have checks and balances on any form of authority.)
* have a ledger of all decisions.
* have separatoin of powers.
* have a ledger of all decisions.
* have separatoin of powers.
¶(!!! study similar historic approaches)
* lambdaMOO had quite nice political innnovations:
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LambdaMOO
* [...]
!!! extract
* lambdaMOO had quite nice political innnovations:
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LambdaMOO
* [...]
¶(don't deal with fools)
Time is limited. You cannot give everyone attention.
Groups should be designed to work with, not against this, fact.
"""
Thank you for your offer, but I am not interested in mediation with X, because I don't take him seriously at all.
I think that who somebody engages is their own discretion, as obviously we can't take up everyone.
I don't know this person enough to care and I'm simply not interested.
"""
"""
I expressed my opinion X - I am looking for "soutions and synthesis", just not with you. I reckon you understand P2P enough to understand ithe difference to N2N.
"""
____________
How could this work? How does it work elsewhere?:
A) divisions system:
(like in hockey/football)
have peers progress if they turn out to not be fools
B) merit system:
(like on stack overflow)
you only progressively get participation powers
C) [...]
Time is limited. You cannot give everyone attention.
Groups should be designed to work with, not against this, fact.
"""
Thank you for your offer, but I am not interested in mediation with X, because I don't take him seriously at all.
I think that who somebody engages is their own discretion, as obviously we can't take up everyone.
I don't know this person enough to care and I'm simply not interested.
"""
"""
I expressed my opinion X - I am looking for "soutions and synthesis", just not with you. I reckon you understand P2P enough to understand ithe difference to N2N.
"""
____________
How could this work? How does it work elsewhere?:
A) divisions system:
(like in hockey/football)
have peers progress if they turn out to not be fools
B) merit system:
(like on stack overflow)
you only progressively get participation powers
C) [...]
¶(keep rules/guidelines short; point to several progressively longer versions)
"""
I'm a fan of multiple, cascading length explications in this sense. Have a super-short version, and 10 progressively longer ones that are more authoritative.
"""
### post 20210309
"""
I'm a fan of multiple, cascading length explications in this sense. Have a super-short version, and 10 progressively longer ones that are more authoritative.
"""
¶(generative form breakout groups)
Many people will lurk (not actively participate), either because of non-specific people (they don't know who else is there) - or because of specific ones (feeling uncomfortable speaking for fear of retribution, out of respect, etc),
Thus constantly generate short-lived groups of very small people.
Use different mechanisms for generation, including random, non-random — (dis)similarity, (un)likeness, (dis)proximity, capacity/seniority,, etc — but also expressed preference, etiher direct ("I wish to (not) group with this person"), or indirect, per properties/interests etc.
Many people will lurk (not actively participate), either because of non-specific people (they don't know who else is there) - or because of specific ones (feeling uncomfortable speaking for fear of retribution, out of respect, etc),
Thus constantly generate short-lived groups of very small people.
Use different mechanisms for generation, including random, non-random — (dis)similarity, (un)likeness, (dis)proximity, capacity/seniority,, etc — but also expressed preference, etiher direct ("I wish to (not) group with this person"), or indirect, per properties/interests etc.
¶(embrace randomness & breed serendipity)
Not unlike IRL, people that didn't plan so should reach proximity, and also get stuck together.
"The elevator", "Passing a bar on the street", not just "being a friend or foaf".
Also a #postbubble measure.
Not unlike IRL, people that didn't plan so should reach proximity, and also get stuck together.
"The elevator", "Passing a bar on the street", not just "being a friend or foaf".
Also a #postbubble measure.
¶(anonymity — not for privacy, but against reproducing discrimination based on voice)
beyond "voices" and "owned speech" !
against displaying "likes" !
why is it important who liked something?
against and beyond klout !
pro:
* end to cliques!
* end to tyranny of structurelessness
* end to klout accumulation and "barriers to entry"
contra:
* authorship gives context / connotations
so:
* encourage "monadic" statements which don't need context:
these could be intentionally studied/developed
* "would a twitter without handles work?"
ofcourse, this (as many patterns here) can be just *a part* of the interaction ... one of the "games".
it is *an avenue* for speech, to reach its effective destination.
why is it important who said something?
why is it important how many people are in the room?
why is it important who (and how many) liked something?
:
* source of speech is connotative
* connotation is most important for prioretization
* prioretization can, with hypermedia, be accomplished in other ways (machine hermeneutics!)
beyond "voices" and "owned speech" !
against displaying "likes" !
why is it important who liked something?
against and beyond klout !
pro:
* end to cliques!
* end to tyranny of structurelessness
* end to klout accumulation and "barriers to entry"
contra:
* authorship gives context / connotations
so:
* encourage "monadic" statements which don't need context:
these could be intentionally studied/developed
* "would a twitter without handles work?"
ofcourse, this (as many patterns here) can be just *a part* of the interaction ... one of the "games".
it is *an avenue* for speech, to reach its effective destination.
why is it important who said something?
why is it important how many people are in the room?
why is it important who (and how many) liked something?
:
* source of speech is connotative
* connotation is most important for prioretization
* prioretization can, with hypermedia, be accomplished in other ways (machine hermeneutics!)
¶develop and emrace structural analysis of platforms!
¶... also, "pads can do everything"
pads vs mailing lists:
you can do sequential discussion,
or threaded discussion on pads
you can do sync chats
you can work async
you can move in chats, paste stuff
you can resolve misunderstandings so people coming later do not have to "relive" the whole thing
you can annotate, categorize, cut/recut points
needs work:
getting "replies" to your "mailbox" → a button can be instaled that does just that.
replying on mobile → fine - mail to pad should be possible as well
"i have a system of categorizing/labeling mails":
1) describe them! they might be useful for others
2) let's figure out how they can be mashed with pads
how to have people not step over eachother:
1) define rules
2) improve "reverse" tools, automatic agents looking for mistakes, too
3) ###
we need pads because they're producing knowledge
mailing lists just produce fleeting conversation
they're narcissistic and reproduce "structureless" hierarchies, social anxiety, etc
mailing lists:
what do you have to show for?
can we construct a consequential method of evaluation?
and not leave it up to "klout" and "what people are used to".
pads vs mailing lists:
you can do sequential discussion,
or threaded discussion on pads
you can do sync chats
you can work async
you can move in chats, paste stuff
you can resolve misunderstandings so people coming later do not have to "relive" the whole thing
you can annotate, categorize, cut/recut points
needs work:
getting "replies" to your "mailbox" → a button can be instaled that does just that.
replying on mobile → fine - mail to pad should be possible as well
"i have a system of categorizing/labeling mails":
1) describe them! they might be useful for others
2) let's figure out how they can be mashed with pads
how to have people not step over eachother:
1) define rules
2) improve "reverse" tools, automatic agents looking for mistakes, too
3) ###
we need pads because they're producing knowledge
mailing lists just produce fleeting conversation
they're narcissistic and reproduce "structureless" hierarchies, social anxiety, etc
mailing lists:
what do you have to show for?
can we construct a consequential method of evaluation?
and not leave it up to "klout" and "what people are used to".
¶"the Rich Uncle Pennybags attack"
<dmytri
https://dmytri.surge.sh/spark
______________ WRITE ABOVE (new) ↑↑↑ _____________
https://dmytri.surge.sh/spark