Tildes constitution
Looking at the current top thread in ~talk, it seems many of us were forged in the fires of Mount Digg, and now suffer again through the great Reddit diaspora. Perhaps it is here our journey ends?
I am not from the US of A, but one thing I have always found fascinating about that country is the concept of the constitution. I believe it was so incredibly well conceived, the three legged stool, with all the thought that went into how it might be attacked and edge cases, that the founding fathers would have made excellent software testers. The fact American democracy has stood this long is some feat.
Which brings me to my question. Should Tildes create some form of constitution? A set of principles that binds and guides it? I believe something like that would make questions like this easier to answer. A founding set of ideals from which everything else should derive.
We have something akin to this at my company, where the founding principle is the customer is always our main priority. This has served our business well for decades; is everything we do in service of the customer and their needs. You would honestly be amazed at the loyalty and trust this builds over time.
Anyway just some food for thought. I think I will be calling this my new home for now - it feels very much like the Reddit of old right now, a feeling I haven't felt for a great age.
Is this what you mean? https://docs.tildes.net/philosophy
No because that doesn't really help with questions such as this that I linked to.
I do love the philosophy, but it is just a philosophy by Deimos. The question he poses above I believe would be better served first by forming a constitution, rather than diving straight into the democracy of it. What are we asking here, direct democracy seemingly in the question posed? That has its own issues, how do we go about making Tildes more independent? These are large questions that could do with solid foundations.
As an example; the top two posts on that thread are:
If those two receive 50/50 votes, how does one go about deciding these things?
The reason I posit this is because it's important to lay out how the whole things functions before you delve headlong into a question like this. The reason it is important is because in 10 years time there may be another 50/50 question, but this time its 5 million people vs. another 5 million people and there is chaos.
I've dealt with a lot of slippery slopes in my lifetime, and this is often how they start.
Deimos presumably would read the arguments for and against each option and use his best judgement. This is how pretty much 100% of decisions on Tildes are made. It doesn't pretend to be a direct democracy, it's Deimos's site and he runs it according to the principles he's already laid out. He asks for users' input at times to get a sense for how we feel about certain things, but he's not bound by which comments get the most votes in those threads.
This site is not a democracy. We do our best to fulfill the wishes of our users, but ultimately one person is in control. The users here have a lot of trust in that person, many of us having known him online for well over a decade, and having his actions speak for themself. Yes, it's an autocracy. Yes, we are okay with that. The goal as we scale up is to find others who are trustworthy and enable them with moderation powers.
I'm only speaking for myself here, but I believe most of us long-term users have complete faith in @Deimos to not only act in good faith but to appoint users who will also act the same. When he was an admin at the site that will not be named, he was by far the most reasonable person I ever talked to in a role of authority.
He's just busy these days, and a lot of people are asking a lot about new rules and structure changes etc that haven't proved to be necessary yet. The slow growth of this site and its policies are a feature, not a bug. I don't believe we need to usurp the leadership and implement democratic rule at this point.
Trust the system. We've been doing this for five years now. During that time we've learned a lot and have adjusted the system accordingly. Patience is a virtue and all that.
It does give a basis to the site and explain the vision Deimos has for it. I’m not sure how different that is to the “customer is always our main priority” example you give?
I’m not sure how a constitution would help decide the 50/50 split in votes you describe. Many countries also don’t have a formal constitution, so it isn’t a necessary thing to have to be successful - the UK for example doesn’t have anything codified.
Well the UK has the Magna Carta, which I would argue is the first iteration of a constitution but in name. It literally put limits on royal power, putting the rule of law first. That is certainly codified.
Whatever you want to call it, I believe setting up such a 'system' is the best thing to discuss first, over anything else. For example:
I don't think these are trivial questions.
I think they are trivial questions and well answered with "this is Deimos's site".
Certainly, I'm fine with that and actually that's the way I lean as well. I think benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government by far. Doesn't hurt raising the question though.
The only time benevolent dictatorship fails though is when they die, and leave the land to some idiot benefactor. But in terms of internet websites, that's not really such a big deal!
Edit: Also, you did technically answer #2 there :)
Websites aren’t governments. This is more like a pub over which Deimos is the proprietor.
No. Meta is death, and a constitution just embeds huge amounts of meta into any discussion of the site.
And if I was looking for an example of a well-functioning democratic system I wouldn't be picking the US.
Maybe not currently well functioning, but look at the sheer amount of effort is has taken to subvert that democracy. Look at gerrymandering for example, how on earth could you expect the forefathers of the USA to predict such a thing?
Not only did the forefathers of the USA predict gerrymandering, they created it. The practice is named after Gov. Elbridge Gerry, who redrew electoral districts to favor his own party. Gerry signed the Declaration of Independence and represented Massachusetts at the Continental Congress during the war and at the Constitutional Convention after it. But even before Gerry codified his salamander-shaped district in 1812, some argue that Patrick Henry (who wielded enormous power over the Virginia legislature) first engaged in the practice when, in 1788, he redrew state districts to prevent the Congressional election of James Madison, due to the fact that Henry opposed the Bill of Rights, Madison's pet project. Henry's attempt failed and the Bill of Rights was introduced and ratified, but even having seen the effects of biased redistricting, Madison and his Federalist partymates didn't introduce or pass measures to challenge it.
Of course, with advances in demographic research, partisan redistricting is a more powerful tool now than it was in the Founders' time. They, perhaps, couldn't have predicted this. Nor could they gave predicted how powerful guns would become, when they ratified the second amendment. And perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect them to predict the damage that could be done by a nearly unchecked, partisan judiciary appointed for life. So then what makes the Constitution so compelling, if it fails to provide a practical framework to address some of the most pressing modern problems for our Republic? It is not a magic document. It is a sheaf of paper designed in the 18th century to impose limits on governmental power in a decidedly pre-industrial world, and in that it was tremendously successful and innovative. The world has changed so much since then.
Ok, I may have to give up on Tildes then. Your summation of:
"partisan redistricting is a more powerful tool now than it was in the Founders' time. They, perhaps, couldn't have predicted this. Nor could they gave predicted how powerful guns would become"
That was exactly what I was trying to state. I honestly don't understand how this can be an exemplary comment.
My point is that the Founders' inability to predict how systems would change and be abused is the core flaw of the American constitutional system. To write a constitution is to set in stone a number of priorities and systemic checks that may cease to be relevant, or may eventually even arrest progress. The 3rd amendment on the Bill of Rights is the right to not be forced to quarter troops on your property, which doubtless seemed important at the time but has, iirc, almost never been tested or cited in a Supreme Court case. And that was their third priority, something that does not register now. Meanwhile the strict rules for amending the thing ensure that the very underpinning of our federal system, flawed as it is, cannot really change with our evolving priorities as a society.
Because it introduces a great deal of important context, as well as ending on an excellent point about how the very argument you made does not shine favorably upon the Constitution. In addition, they knew well what you were trying to state; the portion you quote was them conceding portions of their point in the interest of fairness.
It looks to me that you're upset at least in part because folks here have agreed more with your interlocutor's arguments than with yours. That's fair and a valid feeling, but it'd be a bit impulsive to leave the entire site over it, no?
I try to use a lot passive voice in many of my comments for precisely that reason. Still, if I came off that way in spite of my efforts, I apologize nonetheless.
No. Principles and guidelines can easily adapt to different situations. Laws cannot.
Laws make sense when they are binding. All Tildes decisions are ultimately made by Deimos, so any law we stipulate would only be binding as long as it agrees with their own stipulations. Which, in my opinion, have been totally awesome. But Tildes is not a democracy. Because of that, I don't see the point of a constitution.
Perfectly reasonable opinion, I think that's also what I lean towards.
That's my take as well. Laws are often inflexible, and can never be perfectly written or account for every variable. So having what amounts to a Constitution on a social media site would likely just lead to rule lawyering, and people getting around the laws on technicalities, or by only abiding by the letter of those laws but not their spirit. Whereas by keeping the rules broad and largely unspecific, e.g. "Don't act like an asshole", that allows for a lot more flexibility, and the ability to punish those ignoring the spirit of said rules.
p.s. I would highly recommend reading Eevee's On a technicality, which is what inspired Tildes Code of Conduct.
I'm not a big fan of legalism in any groups, but a big big fan of economia (oικονομια):
Laws will always be gamed, even by the well meaning, and especially by those who cannot be convinced they are in the wrong.
Tildes is an absolute monarchy: this is @Deimos' house, and we are invited guests here. We are not his employees, tennants, constituents (edit) or customers. It's like that one cool guy back in highschool who lets us hang out at his place all the time, even when he's at school or asleep. But it's his house and if one day for whatever reason he's not cool with one of us or all of us, he can (and has) show us the door.
The problem with laws is that once something is stated as law instead of a nebulous "spirit of the law", people find themselves the ability to break the spirit of the law by literal and strict adherence to it. They become a sort of ride on mutated parasite to the law, daring you to excise them at the cost of carving out the law to which they have cloven.
I'm well aware that my time here is not guaranteed. I may become angry when/if I'm asked to leave and are provided with no reasons and no ability for a "public trial" or even second chance. But I'm also very cognizant that spaces like these (unmonetized) are vanishing rare, and if my being kicked is somehow better for Deimos' well being, then I'll just have to wish him well, deal with my own negative feelings elsewhere and, as Bender says, make my own digital house, with blackjack and others.
I like the idea, but I'm skeptical how durable such a thing can be when discussing a private entity. Famously Google used to have "Don't be evil" as their cornerstone, and it was scrapped as soon as it was prudent to the business to do so.
That is exactly why I termed it as a constitution, I was thinking of the "don't be evil" slogan - these things don't matter if they're just company philosophies. The constitution should be created through and on behalf of the represented.
Well I seem to have lost any sort of consensus here. One quote:
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
Let's try to at least agree this site will deal in the facts.
Hey, just because the consensus is against your idea, doesn't mean anyone's upset at you. You didn't do anything wrong by asking this.
For that matter, this thread has plenty of interesting discussion in it. That's what Tildes is for, so I'd argue your post was decidedly good, regardless of whether or not the idea resonated with the community.
You got a consensus:
Very valid. It's hard to differentiate between what can be interpreted as the letter vs the spirit.
In my original post, as with the 'customer is always our main priority'. The reason I like this, is it's typically always in the spirit. It's not saying 'the customer is always right'. Sometimes our customers are very, very wrong, but we always try to do what is in their best interest. However, it is always easy to interpret as law as well.