0.9 Arbitration Process
In-app process of decision making. Results in Dismissal or Resolution
Philosophy
Most all Social Networking and Media sites choose to operate Moderator Farms to manage disputes amongst their users, and violation of community guidelines. -this mechanism has been shown time and again to be ineffective at best, and can result in outright genocide at worst. A better model is needed.
Rather than inventing a special class of incorruptible people who are experts in all things, who never tire and never make mistakes, we choose to leverage the collective wisdom of our Membership base.
Our solution is a Meritocratic Lottocracy. A Lottocracy: also known as sorrition, is process of choosing decision makers at random from a pool of qualified candidates. In this way it becomes impossible to predict whom will have decision making authority on any given issue, which precludes most all attempts at lobbying, pandering, catering, etc.
The added benefit is that such a system inherently limits the destructive potential of any one individual, or one group of individuals. While a perverse interest here and a hidden agenda there will occasionally prevail, -they aren’t systemically compounded. Poor judgements will certainly arise from time to time, but they are easily corrected.
Qualifications in our case mean either familiarity with what content is befitting the Guild they are a part of, in the case of Procedural Dilemmas; or simply being able to read/understand the dilemma posed (as part of a regional language family) for Ethical Dilemmas
All Members of All standings have the option for an equal voice in decision making.
Meritocratic: meaning that IN MATTERS OF GARNERING THE ATTENTION OF OTHERS, preference/power is skewed to favor those who have, through their actions, talents, or achievements, demonstrated their merit, as recognized [assessed] by their peers. We calculate this in two ways: Billings Score: a measure of how often a content brought to Arbitration has resulted validation…. Null result… waste of time Potenza index: a measure of how often content produced has resulted in a negative arbitration. Is this person being a dick, are they a troll
We keep things anonymous to avoid group think, limit bias, and remove any fear of retribution.
Closing thoughts:
We assume that on the whole, people are both well-intentioned and fallible. That no single person is “right” about everything, all of the time. And that no one can be an expert in all things.
We expect that all people will err at some time, in some way, shape or form. But that the average of those error-ridden judgements produce something far more accurate than any single individual effort can.
We don’t presume anyone to hold a monopoly on truth or on morality for that matter, let alone ourselves. We will however take some credit for adopting & adapting the wisdom of [insert people who talked about it here], to create a governance system [decision making process] that’s as [more] robust, responsive, and ethically sound than any we’ve seen so far.
Examples
Content (a post, photo, text block) is reported as Unethical, It is sent to 3 random Members in the relevant language family for Arbitration. The Arbitrating Members decide if the post is Unethical or not, If so, it is taken down. If not, it is left in place.
Content (a post, photo, text block) is reported as Unfitting, It is sent to 3 random Members in the relevant Guild of Parent Guild for Arbitration. The Arbitrating Members decide if the post is Unfitting or not, If so, it is taken down. If not, it is left in place.
Last updated