softer sanctions (e.g. temporary block for activities, or signing in, or having access to information in general)
escalating model of conflict resolution, so doesn’t blow out to whole group, but start on smaller scale
people could agree on a mediator
there is well-being-managers group on Karrot
if it doesn’t work, go further, eventually involving whole group
Other ideas
Quick blocking/pause from the group (also in case of emergency conflicts)
Why? Avoid voting process, because it takes time and consumes group energy. Part of a softer sanction before initiating a user removal process
One or more people (still unsure, needs discussion) could block someone from the group immediately and temporarily
who can initiate?
enough that 3 people with editing rights would block someone?
“sacrifice” system: one person could block the other, but would also get blocked
how long?
Default time of one week?
Could it be renewed/activated indefintely?
Anonymous flagging of person
Why? Allowing people who feel silenced or exposed to express their discontent
If X number of people flag a person for unappropriate bahaviour, breaking the rules, whatever, a bell notification it will be sent out to the group saying that there is a potential issue to be discussed concerning that person
How many people?
hard to know. In Solikyl for example we’ve used previously 3 people as a rule of thumb to actually engage in mediating something or bring the issue to a meeting
For how long can you flag someone?
people could just do it and forget about it and after many months there is no an issue anymore, so in order to avoid that, a confirmation would be sent to the people who flagged whether they want to keep it or not before any notification is displayed on the group
finding ways to still keep it as conflict resolution process and not a drastic remove-user
it is the approach in FSluxmburg
Nathalie suggested also NVC
more general purpose issues / voting / decision process
current feature is actually an “Issue” of type “conflict resolution” (there are no other types defined)
we’re trying to decide which things to work on that we already partially worked out rather than adding new ideas, or bigger changes
suggestion to focus on improving the feature as it is, to meet the nlnet milestone, and continue after that to work on the other ideas
assessing difference between things in and out of scope based on whether this is much clarity on how it might appear in karrot
round about the “improving feature as it is” section
Bruno
all suggestions seem possible to implement
a few aren’t specific enough in the description, but can imagine how it might be
e.g. voting could just be “one choice of three” (rather than score voting)
score voting makes sense, but confusion outweighs it
less notifications / not adding people to chat makes sense
notification that conflict resolution has started, but not added to chat
discussed it thoroughly already, and very clear
Vasilis
adding number to sidenav combined with the less notification is what makes sense
not in favour of renaming to “remove user” as idea for the future is to make it more of a resolution process, and less drastic than removing user
wording of “issues” though might not make sense, so maybe another word here
maybe getting inspiration from NVC is useful here, so not just about removing, but resolving
voting system: current system is confusing, and checking results is confusing (e.g. score of -9 for things… what does it mean?), and with the 3 sliders you can make nonsensical votes (e.g. vote for 2 things at once)
Joakim
good idea to simplify voting system, no problem with it personally, but spent a lot of time explaining it to people, lots of people have problems reading the results and understanding it
one option should be enough
less notifications, not adding everyone, could be good… unsure if other problems would arise. it’s good to encourage people to take part in the discussion, not sure how to encourage it, most people don’t know what’s going on at all
perhaps some automatically added text to explain what’s going on, as people don’t understand the email notifications, people think it’s directly to them rather specifically than a discussion and get confused
Nathalie
not feeling very prepared, mind in many places, been reading about conflict resolution processes, not clear how to use it, not found an English reference for it
confusion around “not adding everyone to chat”, if decided already, can reuse it for milestone, unclear if it’s been implemented, discussed before karrot days
renaming to remove user? perhaps conflict resolution would be different to remove user feature, but that’s bigger scope, and better to keep with conflict resolution
like to keep the voting system, but don’t know many karrot groups, maybe people using it should decide, like the theory of it
maybe something in the interface could have more explanation, or better interface? more guiding through the process
during time in foodsharing.de conflict resolution / reporting process, one group of people against reporting on others, “a world without prisons” bigger pictures, not too keen on sanctions, although maybe out of scope right now
concrete parts maybe adding more words to the process, when starting conflict process there are many words, maybe can modify these steps
“anonymous flagging of user” interesting, but maybe out of scope at this moment
sociocracyforall is working on conflict resolution policy at the moment, maybe a lot of inspiration
relation of conflicts and rules/agreements, and the interplay between them
Nick
taking the topic out of the freezer and defrosting
like to be aware of the scope of this
on the bigger picture, conflict resolution might be the main feature of Karrot, but focus on what is tangible right now
like the idea of explanatory texts. It could be more there for the people who see the conflict
improving clarity, for example the e-mail notifications
likes the theory of score voting as well, but aware that people are having trouble with it. Is it the UI or the mechanism itself?
ordering options is a good alternative, ranked choice. Approved by voting geeks!
likes adding the count on the sidenav. Less in your face, still visible
would like to talk more about the bigger ideas
softer sanctions: not being able to login at all is an easy option to implement (or is it?). It could be added as fourth option. Related to Ostrom’s governing the commons
quick blocking?
people might not use that responsiblity
bigger idea
sanctions?
wondering if it’s helping, or adding to frustrations
suggestion to focus back on the lower hanging fruit
a lot of open questions for blocking, or other stuff
notifications + sidenav count, seems we are quite positive to this
simplifying voting system, or better explanations
renaming it didn’t have much enthusiasm/consensus on that
maybe going through wording / descriptions / explanations on what we use
voting system seems interesting to explore more
rethinking whether in favour of simplifying the voting system, wouldn’t support 1 dimension slider for stay or leave
score voting makes sense, needs better explanation
in results, it shows score, but not clear what the “2” in a given score means
confusing to be able to vote he can stay AND to remove him
like further discussion option
thinking about ranking method
encounter it in another group
is it score voting too? when thinking about how to calculate results
but not exactly same as score voting, fewer options available
we have a bad case for score voting as one option is a negation of the other, so tricky thing for people not familiar with score voting
ranking could be interesting
how would ranking system look? should be intuitive…
can make sense to have the negations e.g. you want to keep them, remove them, but definately don’t continue discussing!
getting clear and understandable is really important, a bit skeptical that the score voting can be clear, theory makes sense, practicality is in doubt… doesn’t add much to the decision
the score voting system would make sense in the context of the systemic consensus model, where you have many proposals from people
would change the wording “No change: nothing happens”: making clearer that it’s not voting for him to stay, but the neutral/nothing to happen “leave the status quo”
Joakims experiences in helping people understand it
not sure why it’s very difficult
maybe hard to make something everyone can understand, people of all ages, not everyone good at English, or using their phones at all
at some level, everything is complicated for people
for the sliders, most confusing thing is that there is one for staying and one for leaving, further discussion makes sense as it’s clearly a separate thing
not simply a thing about deciding to whether someone stays/leaves, potential for it to be a community process
maybe in the chat there is potential to re-negotiate agreements within the group
more than just deciding if they leave/stay
framing it as a tool, feature came out of a need from a group to remove a person, and our resistance to adding normal admin features, and tool is still needed
don’t want to lose sight of the bigger picture, as out of scope
so brings us back to renaming to “remove user” feature again?
always need a feature to remove a user, e.g. in case where it’s decide they should be removed and won’t do it voluntarily
maybe the wider community organising feature is totally different…
if we renamed to remove user, maybe we’re losing something, not clear what the other feature would be, and we can’t work it out yet…
if we narrowed the feature, would make sense to explain this when releasing it…
educational aspect of bringing score voting into the world
how much theory/idealism do we want to bring?
maybe people would find simpler voting system confusing too (e.g. just pick one option)
maybe include an explanation of the voting system in the voting system
different cases for use
just removing a user
… and then a wider discussion / conflict resolution feature that might lead into removal
temperature check on:
changing/simplifying voting system → quite positive for simplfying completely, interest in ranking, could be complicated… simplest option, interest in how it fits in voting theory… need more discussion?
how to proceed with voting system discussion
continue discussing ongoing
keep existing system of score voting
same as current, but remove 1 slider, so have continue discuss, and remove user slider
single choice of 3 options: continue, leave, stay
single slider for: “this person should be removed”, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2
ranked choice of 3 options: continue, leave, stay
round
Bruno
don’t want to continue discussing, want to decide! leaning towards single choice
single slider gives more nuance, but leaves out continue option which is nice
can’t imagine nice display for ranked choice
removing one slider not much easier to understand, and how to count results
Vasilis
want to take a decision, not continue discussing
leaning towards 2 slider option, but also OK with single choice
missed ranked choice, not clear how it would look
Joakim
leaning towards 2 sliders option, to see if it’s still confusing
not strongly opinionated
Nick
in a sea of confusion!
kind of like continuing discussing
could imagine keeping existing system and put more explanations
how to calculate the outcome of 2 sliders. Feels like inventing a new voting system
single choice has appeal for its simplicity, but hard to express nuances
single slider: missing continue discussion is a big limitation, against it
ranked choice: persuaded by theory but unsure about UI
let’s focus on stuff that’s clearer
proposal: we continue chatting about in a message thread on karrot and decide by end of next Tuesday meeting (2022-09-13)
changing name to remove user?
would have to frame whole process there
e.g. “You are about to start a discussion on whether to remove x”
notification and chat messages would have to change
it’s a focused/targeted process as there is one direction
moving to wording around membership → “end group membership”? “review group membership?” rather than remove user
generalising “issues” further, could be decisions/discussion, and the removal is “deciding on someones membership”
proposal: keep “issues” the same (pending potential future generalisation of that into decisions, or something), but re-frame the “conflict resolution” issue type as a membership-related thing, and re-work the text for those areas (e.g. the sadface bit)…
consent!
Outcomes
continue discussing voting mechanisms on karrot, decide by next tuesday meeting what to do there
reframe conflict resolution as membership review (narrower)
review texts and explanations around this, and reword/explain stuff
Available at