[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/meta/ - Ruthless criticism of all that exists (in leftypol.org).

Discussions, querries, feedback and complaints about the site and its administration.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)


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[View All]

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."
88 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 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

>>

 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

>>

 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.

Unique IPs: 27

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]