0.9 CGS: Community Governance Structure

Brief overview of what the CGS offers/ accomplishes & how

***separate out the rant from the structure, and distill it down***

So you might be saying to yourself all this sounds nice in theory right, but what's to prevent somebody from being a jackass? How do you make sure that this platform doesn't turn into another one of those dark corners of the web like 4chan or certain Facebook groups? How do you maintain this space as a safe, productive, and welcoming online environment?

And the answer is... We don't. Our members do.

Most platforms rely on moderator farms, AI, or some sort of profanity blocking software to keep their Users safe from distasteful content. The Evr app takes a completely different approach to content moderation, because we have a fundamentally different relationship with the people utilizing our platform. We don't have a user base. We have a membership base. This may seem like a middling distinction, but it's an important one. One that informs the approach we take with every aspect of the platform, including content moderation. A process facilitated by our Community governance Structure.

Just for a moment, instead of an online space imagine a physical one, Let's say a park. The park opens with the intent that everyone there will enjoy themselves, respect the space and one another. And for the most part everyone does…Till one day some ill-mannered someone decides to vandalize one of the play structures, or act belligerently drunk or violent. Lacking the authority to take any appropriate mitigating response, many people of good conscience will choose to leave rather than condone those sorts of behaviors. Without intervention, associations with that space quickly devolve, till it becomes a place fit only for those seeking, or accepting of maleficence. Typically we invest authority in, and leave it to the efforts of groundskeepers and law enforcement to manage those public spaces for us. But too often their responses are slow, ineffectual, costly, or absent completely. What if instead the authority to manage public spaces resided in the hands of the public? What if the common person was allowed an active role in the maintenance of common spaces? Let's explore the benefits and workings of our stewardship model.

Our Membership base is fully capable of self governance without the need for external intervention, because we provide them with the tools and processes to do so.

Like many other platforms, our members are given the option to report inappropriate or unethical content. But rather than forwarding those reports to some third-party moderator farm, who may or may not have the linguistic or contextual understanding to properly assess the disputed content, we allow our members to arbitrate over content themselves. Disputed content is presented as a Dilemma to members of the wider Evr community, containing the content in question and the rationale for why it is being presented. From there, a ⅔ majority consensus determines whether the content is allowed to remain, or is removed. The initial process involves only 3 arbitrating members, but scales if remediation is necessary. Ethical Dilemmas are adjudicated by as disperse a set of members as is available, while Procedural dilemmas (non-ethical) are responded to locally by the guild to which they belong. Persons whose contributions are consistently found to be inappropriate incur stipulations that limit their posting abilities. Persons who present dilemmas that are consistently dismissed likewise have stipulations placed on their reporting ability. In this way we ensure that no debate receives more attention than is warranted by the overall sensibility of the Evr community as a whole; and that patience & interest in the process doesn’t fall victim to the agenda of provocateurs.

The anonymity of online environments has the ability to turn windmills into dragons, even for otherwise sensible citizens of cyberspace. Oftentimes bystanders fall victim to the outright fervor or feigned outrage of self proclaimed thought-leaders on their soap boxes. Our precious attention, the collateral damage inflicted between dueling keyboard warriors contriving conflict where none exists. To reign in the crazy [ better way to express this here]

Content moderation is one application [facet, aspect] of the Community Governance Structure, another is in-app decision making.

Often, the right and responsibility of leadership is placed in the hands of the precious few, and there is a pragmatic justification for this. At scale, divining & defining the will of a body politic is a challenge indeed. Egalitarian aspirations take a back seat to the practical constraints of decision making at scale. Information needs to be distributed, polls need be taken, outcomes need be deffined, consensus need be built… the process soon becomes so involved [convoluted] that a special “class” of person is needed simply to navigate the process. -These representatives become bottlenecks, a necessary feature (if oft prone to corruption) for large organizations to maintain cohesion and function as a unified whole.

By much the same means that ethical dilemmas are presented, addressed and resolved, our in-app decision making process begins with the initiative of individual members. When a member of a guild identifies a change that needs to be made within that organization, they draft a proposal outlining the specific actions they suggest should be taken. The submitted proposal is then advanced through the guild body for resolution or dismissal, members are able to include feedback along with their decision. If the proposal loses majority approval at any point along the way, it is withdrawn from consideration. If a proposal manages to circulate through the entire active membership of the guild, the proposal is ratified and changes are implemented. Persons introducing proposals are subject to the same mechanisms as those presenting dilemmas are for similar reasons. To meet the needs/desires or specific guilds, the decision making process can be modified to incorporate additional requirements related to aspects of reputation, competency, seniority, or any other standing within the guild.