Currently at the top of the Ballot Box section it reads the following:

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.

Despite this, a proposed niche for the current President of the United States is about to be rejected sitting at 50% after 22 votes. I have to ask those that voted no, by what possible basis can you justify voting no? Should we go ahead and assume that any proposed political niches right of center are a nonstarter?

Please don't misunderstand, I personally don't have much interest in participating in a Donald Trump Niche, but this issue relates to how inclusive we want Narrative to be in the future. I can understand voting down a proposal for a Neo-Nazi Niche, but voting down this niche will hurt the platform and ultimately  alienate a substantial percentage of the US population.

Original Post

If it doesn't pass for some reason, it can always be raised via an appeal to the Tribunal. People definitely should not be "voting" or "judging" based on opinions and biases, but it seems to be happening in some cases. We are also discussing internally ways that we might be able to mitigate some of these types of challenges that appear to be facing the niche approval process...

Brian Lenz posted:

If it doesn't pass for some reason, it can always be raised via an appeal to the Tribunal. People definitely should not be "voting" or "judging" based on opinions and biases, but it seems to be happening in some cases. We are also discussing internally ways that we might be able to mitigate some of these types of challenges that appear to be facing the niche approval process...

Thanks for the response Brian. If a Niche that is wrongfully rejected gets approved by the Tribunal, is it possible that those who voted No might have their reputation scores affected? This would be a good way to disincentivize voting down a proposed Niche because you don't agree with the suggested topic.

I voted it down not for political reasons but that i think it is pretty strange to purchase a person's name as your blog or niche. It didn't seem to be a path I am interested in the community to go down. There is Politics, humor and Opinion for which someone could submit Trump content too already. 

JR posted:
Brian Lenz posted:

If it doesn't pass for some reason, it can always be raised via an appeal to the Tribunal. People definitely should not be "voting" or "judging" based on opinions and biases, but it seems to be happening in some cases. We are also discussing internally ways that we might be able to mitigate some of these types of challenges that appear to be facing the niche approval process...

Thanks for the response Brian. If a Niche that is wrongfully rejected gets approved by the Tribunal, is it possible that those who voted No might have their reputation scores affected? This would be a good way to disincentivize voting down a proposed Niche because you don't agree with the suggested topic.

This is definitely something the reputation system may take into account

I'm highly interested in this one too.  As the platform develops, the whole "what makes a good niche"  will evolve.  It's definitely not a "what I like to see in my feed" judgment.  Eventually, Narrators will have a way to fade-out the users and niches they don't want to see and that should be enough.  We're never going to show those into your feed so you don't need to vote them down in self-protection.

In fact, if you want a bit of perverse logic,  you should up-vote those niches you never want to read. A niche that attracts all that content you don't like is a perfect thing to mark as "I don't want this stuff"

But back to regular logic:  JR makes a good point to draw attention to the voting explanation. It's not about your religious or political convictions, it's about how well a niche serves a community who wants to talk about something.  Is it big enough? Too wide, too narrow?  Clear in intent?  A duplicate?  For me, I'd err on the side of not voting unless you have a strong reason one way or another.  The market will decide .....  

Somewhat related:  "Reputation" is something to work with here.  I wish there were a way to put some of your reputation 'on the line' when you pass judgment.  Certainly, we'll find a way to leverage your reputation in order to vote.  Maybe also some piece of your reputation goes on the line with your vote  (PS this is my musing -- I can see lots of issues if the technique  is not handling fairly) 

freedom posted:

I feel like this topic is worthy of an archival note on how we define niche moderation of controversial topics given that the Pro-Life niche is finally being proposed and the posts here are strong footnotes on how to decide controversial topics 

https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/33546703963722637

Unfortunately, the niche ended up being approved anyways. I do hope that whoever buys it edits the description to be far less cringe-worthy. As it stands, it's rather ridiculous.

Add Reply

Likes (5)
Malkazoid FM mrgoodsettMichelleGHarj
Post
×
×
×
×