@sarawolk maybe we can have a "Voting Theory" category with two subcategories, "The big picture", for discussing the more social and connective aspects of voting theory and "Down to the details" for getting into more technical theories and problems.
This could provide space for people to really theorize and make connections about collective decision making in general, whether that's in institutional, government or informal settings.
Actually it could be nice to have a "beyond categories" space too, similar to the watercooler but more geared as a catch all for voting/collective decision making discussion that's multidisciplinary or defies categories.
Thanks to everyone who came to today's council meeting!
We had nine people total and three of the four council members present.
We were able to get through everything on the agenda, and we added a number of new people to leadership positions!
We also made some plans and set some good intentions going forward.
This meeting followed the trend of our previous council meetings, and all discussions passed were unanimous (with some abstentions.)
We had general consensus to simplify our categories list, but didn't have agreement on a specific proposal, so we decided to continue the discussion here on the forum and then vote when we're ready.
Here's to a great next era of the Voting Theory Forum!
To everyone who RSVPed, attended, volunteered, gave input, or stepped up to serve in a leadership position. Thank you!!!
I agree with you that some well done moderation there would have likely kept @Andy-Dienes and others more engaged and made them feel more respected.
Well if you read the thread you'll see there was moderation, by me. I jumped in and smoothed things out. When I called rbj out for being aggressive and told him why it's not ok, he said "Yes. You are exactly correct, @rob."
I've been doing a fair amount of that here, even though I am not in any official sense a moderator. I've had admin power for some time, and here and there use it to deal with spammers and such. But mostly, I just jumping in as a regular user when someone goes out of line and trying to bring it back.
In the course of the thread above (which you really should read if you want to know how I handle moderation here), rb-j "doxxed" Andy by posting screenshots showing proof that Andy had used some particular identity at Reddit that he doesn't use now. Or something like that. Doxxing. I dealt with that like this:
Screenshot 2023-03-28 180710.jpg
I thought that was moderated about as well as it could have been, although I probably would have DM'd rbj right off the bat if I felt like I was an official moderator. RBJ is very cantankerous (he's always getting banned at EndFPTP and other places and seems proud of it), but he is also really smart and makes good contributions on the legislative side.
I'm curious how you think moderation should be done. Clear rules are nice to have, but there are always gray areas. More importantly, you need someone with good judgement to enforce them in a way that doesn't unnecessarily drive people away. Would you disagree with any of that?
Obviously, we have to keep votingtheory.org, because that's our official domain. So I will renew that right after the meeting.
During our founding meeting, I grabbed voting-theory.com (note the hyphen) by mistake. So I'm planning to cancel that.
A user of the old forum advised we grab the .com and .net names to avoid being impersonated by any unfriendly agents who could turn up. I don't know how important this is. If the council decides to keep them and can raise the money other than from me, I will cooperate with the decision. Otherwise, I am inclined to drop them.
Our other money expense is $60/yr. for the server. This could reasonably double if we get a second server in a different city to hold backup data. Currently, my personal server, which I am paying for anyway for other purposes, is holding the backups. I should double check whether the backup mechanism I set up is really working.
As I mentioned, I hope we can recruit someone as treasurer.
As I have also mentioned, in regard to tech support, we are in a more vulnerable position than would be ideal, because it all currently depends on one person (me). I don't mind doing it, but something could always happen to me (as something could happen to any single individual person). If someone can offer back-up support, they should submit their SSH public key.
In solidarity for a better tomorrow (or at least, a tomorrow),
@Jack-Waugh I found the setting and just did it! I can and will change it back though. This can be something we talk about at the next meeting since it's not an urgent need. I can see pros and cons both ways.