[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/meta/ - Ruthless criticism of all that exists (in leftychan.net)

Discussions, querries, feedback and complaints about the site and its administration.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1612189280638-0.jpg ( 123.59 KB , 767x576 , quotation marks finish the….jpg )

File: 1612189280638-1.pdf ( 1.14 MB , 232x300 , Bunkerchan Manifesto 2020-….pdf )

 No.3579[Last 50 Posts]

Hello everyone, now that we've settled in here a bit more, it's time to address the burning questions of constitutional reform! Until now we have been playing it fast and loose, lets say, with the old Bunkerchan rules, but they are clearly no longer apropos.

The key issue we would like to discuss is the internal administrative structure. As of now, we have been attempting to use mostly horizontal democratic organisation (among mods), however this has had some notable lapses and issues, and some would like to use a more 'traditional' hierarchical structure with admins at the top, moderators in the middle, and janitors on the bottom, or just admins and moderators. The advantage of having admins with executive power is primarily to cut through deadlock, which has been a real problem since our migration. That said, perhaps there are other ways to deal with that.

Another proposal is the question of user democracy and more involvement of users without volunteer status in decisionmaking. This is a good idea in theory but in practice it is difficult to agree on how to move forward with it. Should users have direct voting power? If so, how will this be implemented and to what extent? Can the moderators override the users and if so in what circumstances? Should users be vetted (ie through Matrix) in order to ensure that the vote is not totally skewed by sockpuppets? If so doesn't that privilege people who use off-site communication unfairly? As you can see, it is a difficult subject, but interesting nonetheless.

One more issue is over who is and isn't allowed to post on leftypol, ideologically speaking. Mostly everyone can agree that this board should be for 'the left' but what does that mean exactly? Who is included and who is not in that definition? While I'm sure everyone will agree that 'orthodox leftism' should be allowed, there is ambiguity over what that means at the boundaries. Are anprims allowed? Post-colonialists? Anarcho-nihilists? Juche proponents, or Pol-potists? How about social democrats? And so on. To what extent are non-leftists allowed? Do they have the same 'rights' as leftist posters or are they treated harsher?

I have attached the most up to date version of the old constitution, which some of us think should be simply adapted to the new circumstances. On the other hand, some vols have proposed a new constitution altogether which I will attach below. There is also the option of throwing all of these out and working on something else, so please let your opinion be known. Per the vote on this topic internally, some moderators will be posting with their names displayed, and others may choose to post 'anonymously' (ie. still visible as a moderator but with no name attached).

===

The Bunkerchan manifesto: attached as PDF.

===

The 'new proposal' constitution:

"ARTICLE 1: OUR MISSION

/leftypol/ is a collective of people dedicated to non-sectarian discussion of politics and current events from a politically incorrect left-wing perspective. To facilitate this mission, both technical and moderation staff are needed, in order to create the website, maintain the software, the server, etc., and moderate content by deleting spam.

These staff members are required to have privileged positions above normal users in order to perform their duties. However this also comes with a responsibility to not abuse their powers and act in good faith to push forward the mission of leftypol by:

• Attracting users to the website – continuously growing the userbase while also maintaining a suitable board culture.

• Recruiting staff – adequately recruiting technical and moderation staff to perform functions necessary to the mission at hand. This includes removing staff members who abuse their power or are otherwise harmful to the mission.

• Miscellaneous functions – Carrying out any other tasks related to the mission of /leftypol/ while respecting feedback from the user base.
ARTICLE 2: THE STANDARD POLITICAL PROCESS

Proposals – In order to vote on an idea for a technical or political change to leftypol, it must be first proposed. A proposal must get at least two upvotes from people other than the proposer to proceed to the voting stage.

Voting – All decisions are made by direct vote of the current moderation staff. The voting period will be 72 hours, or, 3 days. Votes pass instantly with 50% of the vote or greater (except where downvotes are equal to votes). Nonvoting is counted as an ‘abstain’. At the end of the voting period those votes with more upvotes than downvotes are considered to have passed, even with a plurality.

Special Voting Categories – Certain types of votes are exempted from normal guidelines. Votes to create a thread to facilitate user feedback on certain issues are exempted from the proposal phase and can be voted on directly. The voting period for feedback threads is 12 hours instead of 72. Optionally, other categories of proposals can be designated as exempted by the modocracy through the standard process.

ARTICLE 3: SPECIAL GOVERNANCE CATEGORIES

Technology Team – also known as the tech team, those responsible for running/maintaining the website and all things technical. The tech team reserves the right to grant themselves special administrative powers on the website in order to perform their technical duties. The tech team also has the right to receive and act on technical feedback directly from the users with regards to bugs and minor feature requests. The leader of the technology team has the right to hire and fire members of the tech team without direct feedback from the modocracy. The leader of the tech team is the member who owns, pays for, and thereby assumes the legal risk of running the web server(s) for the website. The leader(s) of the tech team and corresponding stewardship of tech resources can be transferred via the normal political/voting process. Members of the tech team do not have the right to vote unless they are also moderators. Major technical changes and scheduled downtime are still subject to the standard political process.

Executive Committee – Upon an optional direct vote, for purposes of convenience, the modocracy may choose to appoint a temporary committee of administrators. There must be exactly 3 administrators. During the period of administrative rule, all voting and decision powers are given to the administrators (except hiring/firing staff which still requires a direct vote of the modocracy). Administrators govern by a direct internal vote. Administrators do not have to abide by any waiting periods for voting and also may vote on issues directly, bypassing the proposal phase. Normal moderators continue their duties in spam cleaning. The modocracy defines the start and end date of the period of administrative rule, and chooses which 3 staff members will act as administrator using the normal political process. This period may not exceed 90 days.

ARTICLE 4: CONTENT MODERATION POLICY

Content moderation policy defines clearly what types of content should be deleted, edited, and under what circumstances users should be banned, and for how long. Moderators should only moderate content in accordance with this policy and moderating outside the parameters of this policy should be considered an abuse. A detailed content moderation policy should be created and updated from time to time, taking into account feedback from the users. The moderation policy is created by the modocracy (or administrators).

ARTICLE 5: MODOCRATIC CENTRALISM

Any outreach to the userbase by the staff must first be approved by the normal political process. Outreach includes posting of internal mod drama, or any revealing of information that would have an impact on the optics of leftypol. Violating this policy is grounds for disciplinary action upon direct vote of the modocracy."
>>

 No.3580

File: 1612189541164.jpg ( 86.4 KB , 800x600 , everything i say is right ….jpg )

>>3579
TLDR: Stay the course, minor reforms only!

I will be supporting a common-sense updating of the Bunkerchan constitution, with the references to the old site removed and replaced. I don’t think that the volunteer structure really needs to change and I think that moving to an admin-centric system would be a huge mistake. Our horizontal organisation is, I believe, a huge benefit, and the problems we have been having recently are more due to lack of procedure and exhaustion than intrinsic problems with the system. Having a new constitution and perhaps some new moderators added will give the system a new lease of life.

As for user democracy, I think the current system is once again sufficient. The risks of instituting direct democracy on an imageboard are too great for the project to be workable. We cannot forget that anyone is capable of stacking the deck with proxies, which is not only dangerous to the site but completely undemocratic. Our current system of using user opinion as an advisory factor is better, in my opinion. There is just no way to secure the voting pool, and if we were to move to vetting on Matrix as has been suggested by some, that will create an unrepresentative group with ‘interests’ that may be different to the board itself.

The question of what ideology should and shouldn’t be allowed is a difficult one, but at risk of sounding like a broken record, I think our ‘traditional’ stance is adequate. Fringe ideologies should be allowed as long as they don’t become a nuisance, same with non-left ideologies. We should maintain our relatively hands off approach to ideology and judge posters by how disruptive and/or annoying they are instead.

That said, I could change my mind and I’m interested to see what other people will say about the constitution.
>>

 No.3581

>>3580
I stand with Caballo.
>>

 No.3582

File: 1612190561593.jpg ( 142.52 KB , 1280x720 , 1436107527345.jpg )

Imagine having a proprietary constitution on a communist imageboard.

Make the constitution FOSS so anybody can propose changes and the site users can voot on which to accept.
>>

 No.3583

>>3579
I will try to come back to this in future but some quick thoughts:
>Should users be vetted (ie through Matrix) in order to ensure that the vote is not totally skewed by sockpuppets?
This should absolutely be avoided. It would be much more representative to have a system where mods read discussion threads (where people express a position and argue for it, and where mods can see IP hashes*.) and then take the arguments into account than it would be to have a system where only the people who care to join the Matrix can vote. (especially given the risks of the inverse: People who spend 95% of their time on Matrix voting on matters for the board, based on what they think would be good, without really posting on the board.)
I'm not saying that should be the final system - I don't have a specific proposal yet, although the system used on Bunkerchan seems to have worked reasonably enough. (And I can say this despite having disagreed with some of the decisions made.)

In my view, the important thing is to be representative in practice - not in theory. Theoretically, everyone would vote in the Matrix and we'd have a neat honest system - but outside the world of theory it acts as a barrier to turnout, it serves to exclude voters who post exclusively on the board. Much better that their views are taken into account, even if there is no neat tally at the end of the day. If, indeed, a mistaken decision is made then there will be pressure to reverse it (Think back to the introduction of IDs for example) and the decision in question can usually be reversed.

*Yes, obviously people can use VPNs - but this is the advantage of the human element. It's one thing to have a thread full of IPs saying "no", "no", "no", it's quite another to have a thread full of posters arguing "yes, because 1., 2., 3., 4." "plus there is precedent in X, Y, Z on other sites…" "ah, but our circumstances here plainly differ…"

>Are anprims allowed? Post-colonialists? Anarcho-nihilists? Juche proponents, or Pol-potists? How about social democrats? And so on. To what extent are non-leftists allowed? Do they have the same 'rights' as leftist posters or are they treated harsher?
Cast the widest net possible while structuring rules around avoiding tedious culture war matters and avoiding the derailing of existing threads. Having an Anprim, SocDem or Pol-Potist thread where people who believe in those things can freely discuss them is one thing, having AnPrims, SocDems and Pol Potists come into an existing thread and derail it by the style in which they express their perspective is not.
Take the view, broadly, that for the site there are no enemies to the left of the status quo. This is good for PPH, good for discussion, and good for shifting people to the left. There should be no specific rules regarding the left, only general guidance for promoting good discussion.

As regards those to the right of the status quo, they will be more pinned down by rules around culture war nonsense. Allow them to make threads, but hem them in when it comes to acting outside those threads. Apply a less strict standard around derailment of right wing threads (while still, of course, applying best judgement - if someone's putting forward good arguments that we should nonetheless be able to counter, but people would rather shitpost, better to intervene to preserve honest discussion.)
>>

 No.3584

>>3582
BASED, do this mods.
>>

 No.3585

I want a parliamentary system, so we could just have a munch of different factions forming governments and then immediately collapsing because you decided to form the Trot-SocDem-Posad coalition and then immediately call for another general election
>>

 No.3586

Hey lads. Relatively new mod but I've been with /leftypol/ for a while. I've got a more ambitious plan for the constitution which I will be writing over the next few days or so which will be more or less a re-write of the old constitution to have much more expansive and concrete definitions and ideas as to what constitutes leftism, what types of posting are allowed and not allowed, the respective rights and duties of the users and moderation, ect ect. The goal ultimately is to have a more concrete legal basis for the site to refer to which ultimately means that there is a lot more clarity in regards to what users should expect from the site and guidelines for the moderation on what kind of actions they should take in a given situation as informed by the constitution.

Overall it will be a document meant to be clear and concise about how the site is ran and how we should all conduct ourselves as parts of a community. Format-wise it'll probably be roughly the same as the old one, except articles will be arranged by relevance to each other in sections for easier navigation, and a table of contents appended at the start as a way to easier navigate around the document.

The hope would be going forwards that moderation would refer to the constitution as to why a moderation action was taken on a given item so users can be more clear on what was wrong and what the community expects of them. Likewise it should standardize moderation principles and actions whereas before we've more or less acted semi-autonomously in moderating and only really had informal discussions as to the validity and basis of moderation action.
>>

 No.3587

>One more issue is over who is and isn't allowed to post on leftypol, ideologically speaking. Mostly everyone can agree that this board should be for 'the left' but what does that mean exactly? Who is included and who is not in that definition? While I'm sure everyone will agree that 'orthodox leftism' should be allowed, there is ambiguity over what that means at the boundaries. Are anprims allowed? Post-colonialists? Anarcho-nihilists? Juche proponents, or Pol-potists? How about social democrats? And so on. To what extent are non-leftists allowed? Do they have the same 'rights' as leftist posters or are they treated harsher?
Installing ideological purity tests is a slippery slope, especially since I imagine many users having different definitions on what those terms even mean. There are also greenhorns who are new to the left and for now just identify as a vanilla social democrat, should they not post here? I think it comes down to whether someone argues in good faith, of course once someone with a fringe/whacky ideology shows up (post-colonial types, Khmer Rouge fanboys, AnPrims, etc.) he should be expected to calm his autism. Massive abuse of IdPol is usually a good indicator.
>>

 No.3588

A politburo to manage the page, voted in by users that have been vetted through Matrix or something.
>>

 No.3589

>>3588
And because early basketweawing communism is dictatorship of the proletariat, only communists can make decisions.
>>

 No.3590

did anyone actually ever think horizontalism would work? lmao
>>

 No.3592

Constitutions are liberal.
>>

 No.3593

File: 1612196156505.jpg ( 700.25 KB , 1242x1510 , heckin.jpg )

>>3580
so no changes despite them being promised and the same team of people that have made things rocky in the past, i can't see anything going wrong here
>>

 No.3594

>>3593
what am I, chopped liver?
>>

 No.3595

>>3594
Yes. How you managed to reconstitute yourself and acquire the appendages required to post on an imageboard is anyone's guess.
>>

 No.3596

>>3594
you're new, i have little faith people will actually take you into consideration with the way the internet cliques have formed, you'd have a more likely chance of a space_ situation repeat here then have your ideas get actually taken seriously
>>

 No.3597

>>3595
thats exceptionally literal and furthermore r00d
>>3596
I was asked to join the moderation specifically because I was a bit of an outside perspective as well as being an oldfag. Besides, all mods have a say in site affairs, and the backing of the userbase towards aspects of the constitution are being noted.
>>

 No.3598

>>3597
i'll believe it when i see, good luck tho
>>

 No.3599

File: 1612197507492.gif ( 1.18 MB , 540x300 , 546457467.gif )

I want to be clear I have supported a democratic system (either on the board) or, on the matrix since I started working here on leftypol.
The other mods have made some valid criticisms and I have pondered on them and applied work arounds, or, fixes to the logic and we still appear to be in a gridlock on the situation. My proposal was to (in lue of being able to directly do it on the board) use the matrix room as a buffer for people who actually want to participate in the democratic system and render votes/prepose votes; elect mods, what have you. Zul had alos brought up the viability of term limits, which, I also support. I have no idea where things are going to go from here. But, currently we appear to be in a massive grid lock with the situation. I do not support a permanent politburo type organizational structure and will reject it out right, but, a temporary stop gap to give people on the staff time to catch their breath is something I am not against and would be willing to support.
I think it is foolish and myopic to not understand the importance of reorganizing the organizational structure of leftypol. We need fresh faces on the seats of power, but, it is what it is. I want board democracy and, if need be, will be the first anon to step down if such a system were to be implemented.

That's about all I have to say on the subject, thank you.

>>3592

Nah I disagree with this. Constitutions are needed; let's not get into the meta discussion about it on a political level, but as far as the board is concerned mods need something to go off of in their decision making. Furthermore, it is supposed to be used as a way for mods who maybe, or may not, be abusing the rules to have something to point towards. We need them here.
>>

 No.3600

>>3587
>Massive abuse of IdPol is usually a good indicator.

This. I don't care, which ideological label people like to use, I don't care if you call yourself an anarchist, a leftist nationalist, democratic socialist or an jucheist, as long you agree, that class struggle is the central question. I'm not a dogmatist and I'm aware, that there are many other important issues. But the class question should be always central of every leftist.

Anyone who will reject class struggle and whine all the time about trannies, anglos, whites, jews etc. should fuck off.
>>

 No.3601

>>3600
>trannies
I would recommend banning this discussion outright out of some containment LGBT general
>>

 No.3602

>>3582
Syndies win this one, work in some IP checking voting system for as many things as possible
>>

 No.3603

>>3602
Not a techie but polls could probably be implemented into the site software. And as for IP checking, you could potentially go further (and avoid spamming the voots) by checking the amount of posts or maybe the total requests (page views/refreshes) to try to filter out people who only used that IP to do ballot stuffing.
>>

 No.3604

Have modified democratic centralism with a mass line of consulting a 'council' of posters before big changes for input.
Voting systems won't work unless you break anonymity in which case you're also breaking this community (we're not a forum or a microblog site, we're an anonymous imageboard and the anonymous swarm nature of this way of doing things is very important to let flourish for the sake of our unique culture).
>>

 No.3605

File: 1612201206213.jpg ( 52.76 KB , 680x526 , 1461963083033.jpg )

>>3591
I take your point to an extent but if we start implementing a hierarchy then what is stopping us from landing in another _Space type situation? Power corrupts, there's a reason why hierarchical power structures are so rampant in capitalism. No matter how good the intentions might be when setting out on such a project it is rife for later problems.

>>3593
I'm not against all change, I mean this meeting is a change, we are being more transparent and I support that. But I think that we need to be measured at the same time.
>>

 No.3606

>>3605
>I take your point to an extent but if we start implementing a hierarchy then what is stopping us from landing in another _Space type situation?
Look into NNTPchan server-side code. Maybe you could make it so there's, for example, three admins each with their own server and when one retires a new admin needs to add their own server to the site, which could be federated and thereby also also more censorship resistant, but also more secure against Space_-type situations.
>>

 No.3608

My idea :

ARTICLE 4: THE RULES FOR USERS

>people who try to justify the imperialism of western powers will be banned on sight
<people who suspiciously spend quite a lot of time supporting color revolution in anti-hegemonic countries (Russia, Iran, China) will be banned and their IP given to the government of the targeted country
>people who accuse another user of being or claims to be strasserist/nazbol/red-brown/duginist will be banned on sight
<nazi and fascists will be banned on sight
>liberals and radlibs (people who oppose revolution and/or the socialization of the means of production) will be banned on sight
<the IPs of users will be recorded to analyze their post history in order to track down FBI/corporate shills
>people who use divisive rhetoric (tankie, anarkiddie) will be banned on sight

These rules applies to every boards except /b/
Also,
>posting gore is forbidden on every boards except /b/, spoiler must be put on the op
>>

 No.3609

>>3608
>people with bad opinions should just get banned
no dude we want to change the bad opinions into good ones
educating people is part of our job
>>

 No.3610

>>3609
They will learn by lurking.
>>

 No.3611

File: 1612202950816.png ( 243.51 KB , 640x937 , dave rubin please dont ign….png )

>>3606
That's all Greek to me but maybe the tech people will weigh in on this, thanks.

>>3607
Power isn't all about money, from as far as we know _Space never made any money from Bunkerchan, whatever plans he might have had to monetise it never came to fruition, instead he clung to power just because he liked it and because he thought he knew better. We are certainly not immune from such a situation developing here. As for temporary power, you know how easily that can transform into permanent power. That said, I will try to consider any proposal you or anyone makes about an executive branch openly and honestly. Once again though I will reiterate that the split/decline of leftypol on 8ch happened due to too much power in person's hands, and now we have split from Bunkerchan over the same issue.

>>3608
These sound suspiciously like oldBO's rules…
>>

 No.3612

>>3609
I'm also adding that we shouldn't be pandering to nazi and fascist piece of shit, we've already tried this and it doesn't work. Those who are willing to change their ideas will do so by lurking or asking legitimate questions.
If anything, we should be pandering to anarchist more because there's basically only Marxist-Leninist on this board.
Stop trying to pander to idiots and try to turn this place into /leftpol/ 3.0

>>65082
>These sound suspiciously like oldBO's rules.
Stop, you're making me feel proud
>>

 No.3614

Peak LARPing.
>>

 No.3616

>>3580
I am for a radically new constitution that would go very far. Here are some major problem that should be addressed:
1. Mods do too much in terms of deciding what is/isn't allowed, and since there's no set standard(like in a constitution), every decision requires retreading old ground. Furthermore this can lead to inconsistent moderation. What's ban worthy and for how long changes depending on which mods are online at the moment. This is also why I urge you to calmly and patiently appeal your bans always. Sperging out right then and there to the mods that already agreed to ban you isn't going to do you any favors.

Having a strong constitution that is more explicit in terms of what is/isn't allowed and the overall tone of not only this but other boards would remove a great burden off the shoulders of both the volunteer staff and the users. I therefore respectfully disagree with my comrade >>3591 There is no need for the creation of a strong executive position, these problems he points out are owed to the absence of a strong set of norms(constitution).

2. Second big problem is entrenchment. As >>3599 has said, I am very much for term limits. While I don't think anyone currently on the team is corrupt or similar, I believe there's a constant institutional background trend towards inertia. While we try to shake this up by hiring new people, it should be formalized. Something like 6 months on, at least 6 months off. This should also extend towards 'new laws', such as word filters. Measures passed should come with an expiry date that requires them to be renewed every few months. Just don't let anything become stale.

Ok those are the big things. It's my belief that with the proper agreed upon law, the organizational structure will not be so important. In that sense i'm okay with keeping it the way it works now. I am against doing anything consequential on the matrix, as i don't believe it's properly representational of the userbase.
>>

 No.3617

make me the leader so I can purge all jannies
>>

 No.3618

>>3608
braindead
>>

 No.3619

>>3612
>Those who are willing to change their ideas will do so by lurking or asking legitimate questions.
But when they first arrive they won't know to do this, and if you ban them they can't ask legitimate questions after lurking. Being told to lurk is good, and the community can do that without the mods having to do anything (also saving them work).
>>

 No.3620

>>3583
>Cast the widest net possible while structuring rules around avoiding tedious culture war matters and avoiding the derailing of existing threads. Having an Anprim, SocDem or Pol-Potist thread where people who believe in those things can freely discuss them is one thing, having AnPrims, SocDems and Pol Potists come into an existing thread and derail it by the style in which they express their perspective is not.
>Take the view, broadly, that for the site there are no enemies to the left of the status quo. This is good for PPH, good for discussion, and good for shifting people to the left. There should be no specific rules regarding the left, only general guidance for promoting good discussion.
>As regards those to the right of the status quo, they will be more pinned down by rules around culture war nonsense. Allow them to make threads, but hem them in when it comes to acting outside those threads. Apply a less strict standard around derailment of right wing threads (while still, of course, applying best judgement - if someone's putting forward good arguments that we should nonetheless be able to counter, but people would rather shitpost, better to intervene to preserve honest discussion.)
This is pretty much what I believe. And how it was in the glory days of old. Very reasonable, wish you were a vol. The trouble now is codifying it. Difficult to write the most inclusive possible definition of leftism.

>>3592
Primarily the function of the constitution should be that the board is experienced the same way, even if somehow the entire vol team were to come to be replaced with radlibs or other extreme that want to ban people they personally don't like. That is why it's important to get this right and include as much user input as possible.
>>

 No.3621

>>3579
>Mostly everyone can agree that this board should be for 'the left' but what does that mean exactly?
I think sometimes things can get a little to sectarian here, not this site necessarily but the community. The consensus seems to be we don't want that. But it also seems to be leftism strictly equates to communism. I think we need somewhat of a rebranding. For our future survival I think the board and community should welcome anyone in opposition to capitalism/fascism. That way we'd have greater numbers and we'd be less likely to collectively bottleneck into tankies down the road.
>>

 No.3622

I don't think this is entirely related to this thread but the most pressing problem for me is that the internal communication of the modteam is tied to matrix, which by its nature as a chat and lacking features (to say the least), makes long term planning and really anything else other than dealing with emergencies or day to day janitorial job, chaotic and energy depleting. A critical decision taken in the middle of the night or early morning (for non North-Americans) will rapidly become hidden in thousands other messages and thus quickly forgotten with no meaningful way to find it again.
This brings me to the point that the chaos and lack of proper structure not only in the executive process but more importantly in the debating and discussing stage of the current "system", will de-facto self-select Americans and unless the administration has a American-only policy, this is obviously a problem.
And like Turbojanitor hinted at, this self selection process is already happening as several non-North Americans mods are thinking about quitting for those very reasons.
Indeed, is an organisational system that makes people outside American time zones having to spend sleepless nights to be part of important and critical discussions something that leftypol.org wants or needs?
This is what happens when everything is left to the matrix chat chaos. If Euro or Asian mods choose their own well being (as in sleep at night) over leftypol.org that would mean they would de facto be "excluded" from the decision making process. And this would happen not only for me but for any people far from the US timezones.
This is why planned monthly meeting of the modteam for critical decisions should happen in the imegaboard format. The technicalities of it, of course, could (and should) be discussed and are not to be set in stone (whether or not they should be public, electing a chairman for the duration of the meetings, user input etc…).
>>

 No.3623

>>3618
>t. fbi shill
>>

 No.3624

>incomplete but could be helpful in generating new ideas
“The Constitution of 2021”: Yet another draft [January 11th]
>[Mission Statement]
/leftypol/ is an attempt for the discussion of politics from a non-sectarian left position. Tenets of /leftypol/: 1. Leftism: Political thought arising from and around the ideas of freedom and egalitarianism. 2. Non-sectarian: Fair treatment to leftists of all tendencies. 3. Politically Incorrect: Against Identity Politics and consequential practices of judging content by who said it, and policing language as praxis.

>[Description of Situation]
To facilitate this mission, users require a staff, in order to create the website, maintain the server, the software, the community etc.. These staff members have powers beyond typical users in order to perform their duties. To ensure those powers are being used in the service of /leftypol/, the community of users grants authority to the staff on the basis that they are represented in the execution of said powers. The process of user representation is prescribed in this document.

>[Prescription pt.1]
Administrative staff includes volunteers, moderators, administrators and owner(s). The administrative staff decide policy through means of one member one vote. Any administrative staff may present a draft for consideration. A draft must receive approval from two other members ensuring the language and purpose of the draft is clear. Once a draft is approved, it proceeds to the voting stage.

Voting periods will be 72 hours, or, 3 days. Votes pass instantly with 50% of the vote or greater (except where downvotes are equal to votes). Nonvoting is counted as an ‘abstain’. At the end of the voting period those votes with more upvotes than downvotes are considered to have passed, even with a plurality.

Certain types of votes are exempted from normal guidelines. Votes to create a thread to facilitate user feedback are exempted from the draft phase and can be voted on directly. The voting period for feedback threads is 24 hours instead of 72.

Administrative staff may when necessary, vote to grant greater authority to certain staff. Making them able to dictate without democratic approval. This can be indefinite, but never permanent. This authority can be recalled at anytime. Staff cannot be voted above the democratic process.

>[Prescription pt.2]
Technical staff, also referred to as the tech team, includes those responsible for running/maintaining the website and all things technical. Administrative staff appoints members of the tech team, starting with the site owner. The tech team reserves the right to grant themselves special administrative powers on the website in order to perform their technical duties. The tech team also has the right to receive and act on technical feedback directly from the users with regards to bugs and feature requests. The leader of the technology team has the right to hire and fire members of the tech team without direct feedback from the modocracy. The leader(s) of the tech team and corresponding stewardship of tech resources can be transferred via the normal political/voting process.

>[Policy]
Content Moderation Policy:
Content moderation policy defines clearly what types of content should be deleted, edited, and under what circumstances users should be banned, and for how long. Moderators should only moderate content in accordance with this policy and moderating outside the parameters of this policy should be considered an abuse. A detailed content moderation policy should be created and updated from time to time, taking into account feedback from the users. The moderation policy is created by the modocracy (or administrators).

Centralism:
Any outreach to the userbase by the staff must first be approved by the normal political process. Outreach includes posting of internal mod drama, or any revealing of information that would have an impact on the optics of leftypol or the modocracy. Violating this policy is grounds for disciplinary action upon direct vote of the modocracy.
>>

 No.3626

>>3625
>I find it funny you equivocate dedicated communist with non-American
Did I?
While I agree with term limits, I don't think it would really help with the problem I have underlined.
>>

 No.3627

>>3626
I think part of the problem is too much back and forth… not that discussion isn't productive but often when we have disagreed about things we have just argued about it for hours rather than just either find a compromise or accept that one side is outvoted so it doesn't really matter what they think (assuming the issue is binary or close to it). That to me is the big issue, not timezones.
>>

 No.3628

I would like to make a motion requesting that the modocracy add an icepick flag that can't be manually selected but is automatically added to every single post that quotes wsws-anon
>>

 No.3629

>>3628
Harsh.
>>

 No.3630

Make it so people know who's tor posting and who's not, and for the mods maybe an easy button to prohibit TOR access for some time, maybe half an hour or so.
>>

 No.3631

>>3616
>term limits
>jacksonian democracy meme
>>

 No.3632

File: 1612227801209.pdf ( 30.63 KB , 67x118 , const.pdf )

OP made into pdf
>>

 No.3633

File: 1612227984179.png ( 10.04 KB , 128x128 , 936b3acde657f3cc24263fa333….png )

The whole point of the simple constitution in OP was to basically outline everything that ISNT content moderation and ban policy that way there isn't a need to amend the constitution every single time theres a debate over the rules. Article 4 means the content moderation policy has to live in a separate document, same as laws are different from a constitution IRL
>>

 No.3634

>>3632
It needs more fancy graphics if we do go for that one.
>>

 No.3635

>>3633
The details of law are too complex to fit in the constitution but often the important points are included.
>>

 No.3636

>>3635
naw, just get the constitution agreed to and let people hash out the rules in a separate discussion
>>

 No.3637

>>3614
>hey, we want to make this site better with your feedback
<Peak Larping
retarded take.
>>3633
Smart move.
>>

 No.3638

>>3579
I'm satisfied with this constitution.
I'd also like to comment how advanced the governance has come. A lot of people have been shielded from mod drama, so they might not know.
>>

 No.3639

>>3582
>>3602
realistically retarded
>>

 No.3640

File: 1612248798183.png ( 74.96 KB , 400x400 , cat_alunya_by_noviymemy_da….png )

>>3632
I also would mention alunya as the official mascot of /leftypol/
>>

 No.3641

>>3640
no, faggboi
>>

 No.3642

File: 1612267627397.pdf ( 40.06 KB , 232x300 , Bunkerchan Constitution (S….pdf )

Here is my general draft for section 1 of the constitution.

Section 1 Currently just entails the broad set of community relations, the mission statement of /leftypol/, a provision for alt-boards to have their own mission statement, conditions for mergers and alliances, ect.

do note it is subject to a lot of change as I keep going, this is more just the direction I want the document to go in.
>>

 No.3643

>>3642
I should add:
Section 2 will be the duties, responsibilities, and privileges of posters and moderation towards the site and community more broadly
Section 3 will be the currently defined rules and a process for adding new ones, possibly just the process for adding more rules and the rules themselves being a different document.
Section 4 and 5 will tentatively be about moderation votes, and some iteration of a board democracy.
>>

 No.3644

imagine all the theory you people could have read, instead you spend time writing a constitution for a fucking website lol
>>

 No.3645

File: 1612274598143.gif ( 240.13 KB , 400x200 , ganfalf.gif )

>>3639
who fucking said the internet should be realistic?
>>

 No.3646

>>3644
Why not both? Read theory and apply it in the website constitution.
>>

 No.3647

>>3644
>having rules is a bad thing
>>

 No.3648

>>3644
>imagine all the theory you people could have read, instead you spend time writing a constitution for a fucking website lol
OP's post is like 5 paragraphs, there are literally longer effortposts here regularly
>>

 No.3649

I like this, and I want everyone to be held to it.
>>

 No.3650

>>3582
Are constitutions already open source by being public documents that you can form derivatives from?
>>

 No.3651

so tldr, it's like a full time job reading this let alone being a mod
>>

 No.3652

>>3651
>reading 5 paragraphs is a full time job

I see where the theorylets are coming from
>>

 No.3653

File: 1612341311982.png ( 28.39 KB , 1263x525 , KoGonchanistcommunism.png )

The principles of chanist communism should be applied
>>

 No.3654

holy fuck this board is turning into pure and utter red fascism.
>>

 No.3655

>>3654
???????????? what shitty type of psyop is this?
>>

 No.3656

>>3612
>asking legitimate questions
You cannot exclude the possibility that someone asking questions that seems retarded is still coming in good faith because they might see the world with a completely different framework from ours. It's up to us to understand where they're coming from, deconstruct their worldview then plant the seeds of a new one. This is why altough it might be a bit frustrating sometimes, I prefer /leftypol/ to take the bait a little more than necessary and bear with a few shitstains in the catlaog than outright banning anything not toeing the website line.
>>

 No.3657

let's add that we should emphasize the distinction between an imageboard and social media. Emphasize the niche this kind of place fills. So for example the description officially is
>Imageboard for non-sectarian leftist political discussion
can be better served as
>Anonymous imageboard for non-sectarian leftist political discussion
>>

 No.3658

>>3657
Not a huge fan of this tbh, unless it can somehow to finessed in a way that de-emphasizes commonality with other imageboards. (i.e. those stuck in the cultural orbit of 4chan) the main thing that it seems likely to do is give ammo to people who want rid of flags, tripcodes, etc to argue "it's in the constitution!".
(In fairness, it would also make it harder to argue for imposing user IDs.)
>>

 No.3659

Democracy is bourgeois, eventually this place is going to become full of radlibs and trannnies

Make a set of laws that strictly oppose idpol, liberalism and reactionary posting and force jannies to follow such rules
>>

 No.3660

>>3659
But if we made rules opposing idpol and reactionism you'd be the first to go
>>

 No.3661

>>3660
it's not idpol somehow when he screeches about trannies like the obsessed schizo he is
>>

 No.3662

>>3656
>retarded questions in good faith
anyone coming in good faith would spend their time lurking and have less retarded questions, what you promote is entertaining retarded low effort trolls that actively refuse to learn
reactionaries asking questions they could easily look up if they had any genuine interest are not ever acting in good faith
take this bullshit idea and shove it back where it came from, far up your fucking retarded ass
>>

 No.3663

>>3656
>>3662
the "best case" scenario is you create more bunkerchan like retarded /pol/acks that merely switch from nazi to soviet aesthetics and spouting leftypol memes while becoming retarded cunts like this fag here >>3659
but considering that leftypol cares about nothing more than impressing and sucking /pol/ cock all day long to find acceptance for being not the liberal bogeyman they're accused of being this is probably the course of action most of you fags want to take
good luck with that, keep repeating the endless cycle of retarded shit you started off ever since you managed to create leftpol
>>

 No.3664

The only rule I want:
>Threads about 4chan, /pol/ or raids are banned.

Maybe I am wrong but imo bunkerchan got a lot worse in the wake of the chudjak raid, seeing /pol/ freak out was funny but in the end I don't think it was worth it. They got like 10000x more users than we do, if just 0.1% of them decide to shitpost here the entire site goes to shit. I don't think anything good will come from engaging with these people, so it should be heavily discouraged.
>>

 No.3665

File: 1612426287787.jpg ( 60.15 KB , 748x1024 , queen.jpg )

But we can insult trannies?
>>

 No.3666

>>3664

So them raiding us is banned?
>>

 No.3667

>>3666
They are mostly unemployed and have no friends or family, so there'll always be some lonely fuck who'll shitpost here for attention. We can't stop that, I am just saying we shouldn't pour gas on the fire.
>>

 No.3668

>>3667

But isn't this an invitation to Raid us, they are aware of this site
>>

 No.3669

>>3668
Maybe I am being retarded but I really don't get what you are trying to say. I feel like I made my point clear in my previous posts.
>>

 No.3670

>>3665
idpol is banned
>>

 No.3671

>>3670
it's not
never has been
"good faith" reactionary shit has always been accepted and embraced
>>

 No.3672

>>3671
idpol is banned
>>

 No.3673

>>3664
Agree with this.
>>

 No.3674

>>3664
It really wasn't anyone from leftypol that did the poljack thing. That was organic and leftypol just got blamed for one anon making the edit.
>>

 No.3675

>>3665
I kinda got used to the wordfilters, can we place wordfilters on certain slurs, just to piss of all the nerds using slurs to sound cool? Transhumanist, Uyghur, etc
>>

 No.3676

>>3674
pretty sure its an anon from leftypol that created it, we just weren't the ones spamming it everywhere.

>>3671
>embraced
bullshit, good faith morons were allowed in containment threads, thats all
>>

 No.3677

>>3676
>>3672
>banned
>bullshit
keep telling yourself you delusional fucks, anyone who looks at your shithole can see how it went the last couple times and nothing has changed
the difference between you retards and bunkerchan is that you keep your reactionary idpol more "civil", or what you call "good faith"
>>

 No.3678

>>3677
you see idpol, you report it, we ban it.
>>

 No.3679

>>3678
no you don't
>>

 No.3680

>>3579
>>3601
How about just a containment board for discussions pertaining to idpol or cultural issues? Idpol threads that aren't class related or are just generally off topic would be moved there (or preferably posted there originally), and bad faith/reactionary/hateful idpol (you know what I'm referring to) would be moved to /b/ or deleted. This would help streamline discourse and prevent wreckers without totally silencing "radlibs" or people wanting to have actual discussion on these topics, thus improving the quality of the site as a whole. It seems like a win-win for all parties except /pol/ wreckers.
>>

 No.3681

>>3680
No idpol
>>

 No.3682

>>3681
Like it or not, that is probably the best solution to the idpol question.
>>

 No.3683

>>3682
No
>>

 No.3684

>>3683
Most of the "idpol" related threads I see on here and before on bunkerchan are threads made by people, not unlike yourself, who radlibs living rent-free in their head, so a containment thread for that shit seems like the only viable option short of automatic bans. I mean really, there is more bitching about non-existent idpol on this site than actual idpol.
>>

 No.3685

>>3684
most of it is posted in unrelated threads and you fucks don't do shit so you can go fuck yourself with this bullshit
>>

 No.3686

>>3682
>let's just recreate /idpol/ as a board
why not just go full out and call it /troon/? while you're at it, since you wanted to have talks with bunker to undo the split, give pyongyang the sole moderation privilege on it?
not only do you give them a footstep (posts), you argue to give them entire regions (boards)
>>

 No.3687

>>3685
So why exactly are you so opposed to a containment board?
>>

 No.3688

>>3687
you fucks can do whatever you want, and you already do and will continue so
see >>3686
what you should do is stop pretending you are not kissing /pol/ ass, you opportunistic useless fucks
>>

 No.3689

>>3687
They don't work and the people who post in them don't deserve to be here until they unfuck their brains
>>

 No.3690

>>69961
>owned by the posters
You mean "by me".
>>

 No.3691

>>69961
Not every poster wants to be a namefag and have to log in on your private space to have a heard opinion.
What this will create is your own clique to start drama and declare yourself representative of "the boards users".
Fuck off.
>>

 No.3692

>>69961
>Lastly, there are posters from both boards in there
I'm saying this as somebody who has been here since before this place even existed:
This is meaning you and "pyongyang". Factionalism by incels and wreckers.
That your ass isn't banned yet is a sign of things to come your ilk is yet again cooking up and being allowed to fester thanks to their liberalism. You couldn't be any more obvious about what you really are pushing for.
Fuck leftypol mods.
>>

 No.3693

>>3692
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXYiV2z3BfM

We do not endorse Sage, we simply choose to allow his experiment. Don't use his chat if you think it's a bad idea.

t. Caballo
>>

 No.3694

this is a thread about the constitution, not a general /meta/ thread. stay on topic please
>>

 No.3695

File: 1612624078739.pdf ( 55.67 KB , 232x300 , Bunkerchan Constitution (S….pdf )

Section 2 is done!

Section 2 innumerates the rights and duties of the posters and moderation. In addition, some edits for clarity were made for section 1, and generally I'll try to simplify my terminology for people who english is not their 1st language.
>>

 No.3696

>>3695
>>3695
Based
>>

 No.3697

>/leftypol/ is an anonymous community of non-sectarian leftists united in common cause against the forces of capitalism, fascism, and liberalism.
this makes it sound too much like we're for left unity. non-sectarian means the moderation doesn't take sides ala old board owner, not that leftists aren't allowed to attack each other. we are more disunited in common cause.

>Leftism shall be henceforth defined as:“A broad set of ideological forces which are dedicated to, by one form or another, dismantling the current material way of things in capitalism and building a new communist one to replace it.”
>The broad tenants of a communist society are outlined in many works of more import than this, but briefly the goals of a communist society are the dissolution of the class divide, social and material emancipation for the whole of humanity, the eventual dissolution of the state, and ending labor as a material venture and returning it to the common people as a taskto be taken at their leisure. These goals may executed upon on any reasonable timescale and still be adequatelycalled “communist”.
my particular brand of socialism is non-ideological and anti-communist, i am still a leftist and have as much right to be around leftypol as tankies and the like. not all leftism is communism. be more broad and general
>>

 No.3698

>>3697
>my particular brand of socialism is non-ideological and anti-communist
It’s non ideological but it is defined by an antagonism to an ideology? Seems pretty ideological to me
>>

 No.3699

>The immediategoals of /leftypol/ may change, but its central mission has always remained: provide an open space for discussionof topics related to leftism and understanding the processes and goings-on of the world through a dialectical and materialist lens.
Far too sectarian. What about idealist comrades? and those that don't buy into dialectics?
>>

 No.3700

>Article 3:The Alt-Board Clause
>The mission statement is allowed to deviate from /leftypol/’s but must still hold the central tenants of upholding a leftist position and fostering good-faith discussion of the topics contained within the board
Going by these rules the only alt-board we have, /dead/, would have to be punted. As post-leftism is against all those specifications in the first two articles. Language must be broadened
>>

 No.3701

>>3697
>this makes it sound too much like we're for left unity
a little bit of yes, a little bit of no. we are for left unity but not against intra-leftist critique, just not baseless shitflinging.
>be more broad and general
I'd have to ask you to comment on exactly how to do that, I've never heard anyone call themselves "anti-ideological". Ideology infests everything, its a fact of life imho.
>>3699
>What about idealist comrades? and those that don't buy into dialectics?
How about
<The immediategoals of /leftypol/ may change, but its central mission has always remained: provide an open space for discussionof topics related to leftism and understanding the processes and goings-on of the world through critique of capitalist society and production, as well as all else resulting from it.
>>

 No.3702

>>3697
>>3701
actually how about this
>Leftism shall be henceforth defined as:“A broad set of ideological forces which are dedicated to, by one form or another, dismantling the current material way of things in capitalism and advancing society into a new epoch and mode of production, most primarily communism but not at the exclusion of other left-ideological forces.”
>>

 No.3703

more accurately for this board "leftism" would be described as opportunistic dicksucking for /pol/ approval
>>

 No.3704

>>3703
bros……we got pwned
>>

 No.3705

>>3703
oh. It's another radlib finds the site and mischaracterises us only to leave in smug ignorance episode. Yey.
>>

 No.3706

>>3695
>rights
>on a website
do jannoids really?(YOU'RE RIGHT, RIGHTS ARE SPOOKS :^))
>>

 No.3707

There should be a brigade of imageboard Red Guards that constantly revolutionizes the boards.
>>

 No.3708

>>3707
Everyone that does not second this is a shitty marxist and even worse human being
>>

 No.3709

File: 1613017841448.png ( 1.18 MB , 1500x1000 , 1603706604866.png )

>>3579
I'd say for first, continue treating chuds with harshness, be ban happy if you see them shit up threads. If there is no measure to counteract reactionaries, this imageboard will only end up becoming another /pol/, like what happened with bunkerchan. This happens because there are way too many of them, way too many. For the quality of this board to stay at least decent, just continue banning any chuds you see. If you are not harsh on them, it will leave a precedent that they are merely just "joking" in order to mask their /pol/ trash that they want to peddle, thus they won't get banned and their reactionary shit will influence other leftists to reactionary thought, and it may even lead them to start browsing /pol/ for that same rhetoric.

Second. Allow any type of leftist, as long as they aren't nazbol or nazbol tier. Socdems are fine because you can radicalize them and they don't tend to be reactionary.
>>

 No.3710

>>3709
agreed. maga dipshits, Qcumbers, and fash all tend to be petty booj or NEEET and not really worth even attempting to radicalize, especially considering how many you will alienate by welcoming them.

don't be like biden. don't try to reconcile to the unhinged right wing.
>>

 No.3711

>>3709
completely agreed, which is why I'm wondering why the fuck that leninhat anti-vax dumbass is still not banned. he isn't arguing in good faith and isn't funny like some of the pet nazis we had. the dude's just fucking retard - he single-handedly derails entire threads.
>>

 No.3712

>>3711
He's been banned quite a few times actually, I think he just ban evades to post here.
>>

 No.3713

>>76816
soy reeks from your spampost
>>

 No.3714

the people talking about "politburos" and having electoral systems in place are absolute larpers
>>

 No.3715

>>3714
This. Imagine not just letting individual mods do whatever they want all the time.
>>

 No.3716

File: 1613114222518.png ( 21.4 KB , 444x371 , radical furryism.png )

>>3715
>leftypol in a year if no constitution
>>

 No.3717

>>3716
Based.
>>

 No.3875

File: 1615146930898-0.pdf ( 577.44 KB , 232x300 , Leftypol Manifesto 2021-03….pdf )

File: 1615146930898-1.pdf ( 573.5 KB , 232x300 , Leftypol Constitution 2021….pdf )

>>3579
Here is my proposals for the new (well really just updated) constitution. I have split it into two so that users can just read the one that is relevant to them. And they haven't been agreed on yet so ignore the bit at the bottom.
>>

 No.3876

>>3875
Oh and I posted them for feedback obviously, so please go ahead and let me know what you think.
>>

 No.3895

>>3876
sounds good, but we don't have a public board log yet I don't think ?
>>

 No.3896

>>3895
leftypol.org/log.php?board=leftypol
>>

 No.3899

>>3896
cool, now link it on the front page
>>

 No.4031

FIX POSTING IMAGES FROM MOBILE FOR FUGGSAKE
>>

 No.4037

>>4031
We are looking into this, can you tell us more about the issue? What browser and what operating system are you using?
>>

 No.4038

>>4037
iOS (14.4.2, although the issue has existed in previous versions too), and the built in Safari browser.

In the post it will let me click “Select/drop/paste”, and then prompts me pick a picture from my album which I do. But the picture does not show up in the attached files tab prior to posting, and after posting it’s like no picture was attached to begin with. I remember it being like that for a while on the old board before being fixed. Thanks for looking into it.
>>

 No.4054

>>4037
I’m using an iPhone Xr and the Safari browser app.
>>

 No.4061

>>4038
To add to this, I’ve figured out choosing from Files (“Browse…” option) works problem free. Only photo library doesn’t.
>>

 No.4076

>>4038
>>4054
>>4061
Thanks, I will get the tech team to follow up on this and try fix it.

Anyway, on topic, we are now voting on whether or not to approve the version of the constitution/manifesto that I proposed here.
>>3875

I understand that it is not as radical a document as some people were hoping for but I believe that it is a good middle ground between user input/mod accountability and stability. Also it could still be rejected by the other moderators of course.
>>

 No.4077

>>4076
Just reviewed it looks good tell us how the vote goes
>>

 No.4160

>>3579
The new constitution has now PASSED! While there may be more changes in the future, and we will continue to experiment with user democracy, I am glad that we have a solid base to build on in the future and a ruleset firmly established for leftypol.org.

Thanks to everyone for your involvement!

Unique IPs: 70
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome