What kind of threshold should a vote have to pass before being implemented? Do we really want to be making changes based on a vote that only got one “Aye”? Ten Ayes? Over 50% of the user base?
What kind of vote engagement can we reasonably expect to achieve? Is it actually likely that 50% of the user base will engage with any particular vote? Are there any useful presidents out there?
Who should be responsible for counting the votes when they’re over? Perhaps the OP tallies the votes and edits the post?
Is there an easy test the mods can apply to a tallied vote to allow them to check whether it’s passed? Something that is not open to interpretation and results in a clear directive to make a change?
I’m also kind of testing out this discussion format as a way of generating things to vote on i.e DISCUSSION > POLL > VOTE seems to make sense.
We’ll see :)
The current aye/nay system is cluttered and clunky. How about we allow comments in [discussion] posts and then have a separate [vote] post with a single comment for each option so people can choose up/down/abstain? Then nobody has to count anything, human or bot, or worry about typos, formatting, sarcasm, etc.
I also propose a minimum of 3 days, maximum of 1 week per each [vote], no time limits for discussion. You can choose when to start the official [vote] after discussion starts.
I think the vote posts might be better off in their own community outside the agora, like c/pollingplace or something. Discussions and topics that meet a threshold here are moved to that community and voting goes for a week. Each week the current slate of pending votes is posted and voting can occur with upvotes and downvotes on an aye, nay, and abstention comments inside the post.
Can a mod/admin/whatever pull who upvoted what? Somehow Lemmy is tracking it since it knows what you’ve upvoted. But it might make sense for the first couple of votes to do some real data analysis on them (who/what instances, age of account, average post quantity voted which way) to determine an algorithm that minimizes brigading while allowing everyone a voice.
I really like this, helps keep it neat and easy to find each question on the “ballot” which will have a natural time limit
This will make or break this proposal if we want to limit based on sh.itjust.works users, account age, etc. If that exists, it sounds like a great option to me.
I think that [discussion] preceding [vote] makes good sense. I’d add that [vote] posts should link to their respective [discussion] posts.
I like the idea of using lemmy’s builtin voting mechanism.
I think for yes or no voting questions, it would be simplest to express all options with a single comment that is an affirmative statement on whatever is up for vote. Then each user action (pressing the upvote button, pressing the downvote button, or reading the post and pressing no button) maps exactly onto the vote a person casts.
I think this would be useful too, but currently that way of voting raises the issue that anyone outside this instance could vote on that issue as well and there would be no way of determining how many up/down/abstain votes came from users of this instance alone. A bot that could filter users of this instance would solve that though. If a separate community was created solely for voting (as opposed to discussion), there might be a way to make it private for users of this instance which could solve the problem also.
I really like how simple the single post up/downvote thing is.
I guess my only concern is that it hides who’s voted, which would make it harder to weed out bots/shitbags.
Some people want a secret ballot. Shitbags deserve a vote too 🤷🏻♂️
It’s not perfect, but like you said, it’s simple enough, and IMHO it’s better than our current system
Whole problem with that system is that people is up to restrict other instances from voting and that’s when it stops working at all.
Yeah I detailed that issue too. If we do indeed want to restrict voting to users of this instance, the fact that anyone in the fediverse can up/downvote on a comment makes it a non-starter without some additional way to filter the vote to only the users here.
Maybe add a period of time between closure of discussion (which may take longer on complex topics) – and voting? So that people have time to see it all, and perhaps even make summaries? With several options, those should be well composed: Heading - explanation (links to relevant comments), each in a comment to the poll.
Commenting in the poll disallowed if possible(abstension, well yeah …). I like this.This is a fantastic idea. Not sure about the time limits but the [vote] post seems like it would work really well.