I'm REALLY disappointed in @Ted for voting to reject my Niche topic. I'm wracking my brains to give him (and the others that have followed suit that I've had very positive interactions with like @Harj) some meager benefit of doubt.

Reviewing the brief instructions at the top of the Niche Ballot page are some instructions on how to approach Niche voting. One column for upvoting, and one for rejecting proposed Niches. 

Vote UP  if:
  • The niche is unique in some way. A niche can be a subset of another niche, however. For example, "Wireless Routers" is perfectly valid, even if "Routers" already exists.
  • You think some people will find the niche interesting, even if you personally have no interest in it.

The first bullet describes how similar two proposed Niches can be and still be considered "unique" and therefore equally valid.  

The second bullet literally instructs voters to exclude their own personal interest. This is why I have, up until this point, had no problem voting YES for every single Niche suggested... including Beach Life and News.

Since @Ted and others have rejected the idea, and it is by far receiving the most negative attention, I thought maybe the second column of instructions could help me undestand the hostility. 

Vote DOWN  if:
  • The niche is not unique. For example, "NY Giants Football Team" is not unique if "New York Giants Football Team" already exists.
  • You think the subject is morally objectionable or violates our Terms of Service. Political or religious differences should be given wide latitude. For example, if you are "Pro-Choice", you should not reject a "Pro-Life" niche. Political and religious differences should not be grounds for rejection.

Now, according to the first point, redundancy is a good reason to reject a Niche proposal. I was the fourth to submit a Niche to the list, so checking to see if someone else had already made the suggestion: New Parish was easy to determine. It had not yet been suggested!

The second bullet prohibits morally objectionable and ToS violating subjectsSince Narrative is an intentional effort, based on a set of shared values/ideals, to build community... and Niche for New Parish writings would function in the same way... I figured this couldn't be the reason why it was rejected by the Founder of the company.

The second bullet continues to explain a notorious example of extreme political/religious perspectives that might typically attack each other with suppressive voting—and discourages it.

Clearly, it is Narrative's position to give political and religious differences wide latitude. So... it isn't about religious differences, right? So, what could it be? Is it that they just don't understand the topic? I have a hard time believing this. But even if that is the case... what does it matter? Why vote?

If someone proposes a Niche, there's a good chance that they do so because they believe there is content to support it. (Incidentally, the potential for supporting content is NOT one of the voting criteria mentioned.)

I would love to hear a response from @Ted and/or @Harj.  @Harj has been here since the start, positively pumping up Narrative and I presumed he'd be motivated to band together and support everyone in "his Narrative family".

And, @Ted is in the lead of this whole parade. If he doesn't understand how Niche voting is supposed to work... what then?

 

 

Original Post

I noticed this pattern in voting.

What can I say.  Humans are fallible.  We must be extremely careful to include safeguards in our processes, and not leave them entirely up to the wisdom of moderators, or even tribunals of elected members.  We need something akin to a constitution that delineates that actions contrary to it can be overturned.

PS  I too have approved every niche so far.  They all meet the criteria.

Hi Bryan, I noticed this too. Seemed odd to me as well. But don't fret too much...When i voted for it, it popped you up into 63% with that one vote. There is hardly any members there yet. I am sure you will have more than enough votes from this small community as it begins to log on. 

Thanks @Emily Barnett I'm not too worried about the voting, just the Ted part of it. It's also surprising that @Rosemary's proposed Niche, Beach Life, is also getting some serious hostility. Just shows people are voting with their affinities and aesthetic preferences! 

I need to remember this is the very first Niche voting experience. The team will sort it out. 

@mrgoodsett Thanks. I tried to be as succinct as possible in the description. But, after getting downvotes, I pasted the text into a Flesch-Kincade text analyzer and it registered as an 19th-grade reading level. So, maybe the downvotes were really just confused votes? I dunno. It's definitely more complicated than Dogs. 

Bryan posted:

Thanks @Malkazoid, I think you're right. If Ted hadn't voted to reject my Niche, I think I would have just chocked it up as "confused voter syndrome"... But Ted did vote, and he's supposed to know this stuff. 

I didn't realise you could see how people had voted.  I looked and Ted is in the YES column now.  It is possible he clicked the wrong button, and went back to correct it afterwards?

Being the devil's advocate here: I didn't understand your niche, nor I had ever heard in my life the concept "New Parish". Had to google it now to understand what it was, and then after all the polemic here I decided to vote for it.  Maybe that's why people didn't vote for it?

Andreas Hauser posted:

I confess to also having downvoted Beach Life and "Oil or Life", however after reading this post I can see that we need as many niches as possible to accommodate as many different views as possible - so I have now changed my vote.

Thanks for changing my mind :-) 

Awesome - you've gained yourself a follower.

Few things are more impressive than someone who can change their mind and admit it.

Malkazoid posted:
Bryan posted:

Thanks @Malkazoid, I think you're right. If Ted hadn't voted to reject my Niche, I think I would have just chocked it up as "confused voter syndrome"... But Ted did vote, and he's supposed to know this stuff. 

I didn't realise you could see how people had voted.  I looked and Ted is in the YES column now.  It is possible he clicked the wrong button, and went back to correct it afterwards?

Yes, that is exactly what happened.

Sorry, I was so busy yesterday, I missed this topic.  Definitely just a mistake in where I clicked.  My apologies!

Currently, there are 44 Niches, and NO redundant proposals.

However, only 10 of the 44 have a 100% approval score. 

This means 77% of the proposed Niches have met with resistance by the voting community. Clearly we need some voter education

I have two solutions which are completely agnostic to the level of effort required to implement! 

  1. Force rejection votes to select WHICH reason they are using to reject a Niche. (a) Redundant, or (b) Violates ToS
  2. Exclude members from receiving community rewards generated by Niches they voted against.

I can hear the argument against this—"but then everyone will vote YES for every Niche." —Exactly. IF it is redundant, or violates the terms of service, it should be rejected, and there won't be any rewards to be had anyway. 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×