Coercion: Difference between revisions
Created page with "= Overview = When a transparent public voting system is implemented the danger or coercion is increased because the coercer can verify whether a vote was placed according to their demands. An {{CommunityMainName}} can mitigate the danger of coercion by enforcing an any-coercion stance that can be enforced through the issue resolution process. Clear cases of coercion should be easily defined and policed by the community, meaning the threat of coercion can be mitigated..." |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Overview = | <translate> | ||
= Overview = <!--T:1--> | |||
<!--T:2--> | |||
When a transparent public voting system is implemented the danger or coercion is increased because the coercer can verify whether a vote was placed according to their demands. | When a transparent public voting system is implemented the danger or coercion is increased because the coercer can verify whether a vote was placed according to their demands. | ||
<!--T:3--> | |||
An {{CommunityMainName}} can mitigate the danger of coercion by enforcing an any-coercion stance that can be enforced through the issue resolution process. | An {{CommunityMainName}} can mitigate the danger of coercion by enforcing an any-coercion stance that can be enforced through the issue resolution process. | ||
<!--T:4--> | |||
Clear cases of coercion should be easily defined and policed by the community, meaning the threat of coercion can be mitigated to the point it does not threaten the integrity of self governance, and the public vote needed to ensure the system is not compromised. | Clear cases of coercion should be easily defined and policed by the community, meaning the threat of coercion can be mitigated to the point it does not threaten the integrity of self governance, and the public vote needed to ensure the system is not compromised. | ||
= Mitigating coercion through punishment = | = Mitigating coercion through punishment = <!--T:5--> | ||
The [[Issue resolution]] process can be initiated by any person who feels themselves or somebody else is being unduly coerced, the community can then deal with this in the way they have decided it should be dealt with. | <!--T:6--> | ||
The [[Special:MyLanguage/Issue resolution|issue resolution]] process can be initiated by any person who feels themselves or somebody else is being unduly coerced, the community can then deal with this in the way they have decided it should be dealt with. | |||
= Defining coercion = | = Defining coercion = <!--T:7--> | ||
<!--T:8--> | |||
Coercion is persuading someone to vote using force or threats. The community will decide what constitutes a threat, for example is an individual saying they will not talk to someone again if they vote a certain way a threat, or is it that individual's right to choose who they talk to? | Coercion is persuading someone to vote using force or threats. The community will decide what constitutes a threat, for example is an individual saying they will not talk to someone again if they vote a certain way a threat, or is it that individual's right to choose who they talk to? | ||
<!--T:9--> | |||
These types of definitions will develop and evolve over time. | These types of definitions will develop and evolve over time. | ||
= Related concepts = | = Related concepts = <!--T:10--> | ||
* [[Enforcement of rules]] | <!--T:11--> | ||
* [[Issue resolution]] | * [[Special:MyLanguage/Enforcement of rules|Enforcement of rules]] | ||
* [[Special:MyLanguage/Issue resolution|Issue resolution]] | |||
= Related reasonings = | = Related reasonings = <!--T:12--> | ||
* [[Manipulation]] | <!--T:13--> | ||
* [[Special:MyLanguage/Manipulation|Manipulation]] | |||
</translate> | |||
[[Category:Reasonings]] | [[Category:Reasonings{{#translation:}}]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:19, 10 November 2024
Overview
When a transparent public voting system is implemented the danger or coercion is increased because the coercer can verify whether a vote was placed according to their demands.
An Izara Community can mitigate the danger of coercion by enforcing an any-coercion stance that can be enforced through the issue resolution process.
Clear cases of coercion should be easily defined and policed by the community, meaning the threat of coercion can be mitigated to the point it does not threaten the integrity of self governance, and the public vote needed to ensure the system is not compromised.
Mitigating coercion through punishment
The issue resolution process can be initiated by any person who feels themselves or somebody else is being unduly coerced, the community can then deal with this in the way they have decided it should be dealt with.
Defining coercion
Coercion is persuading someone to vote using force or threats. The community will decide what constitutes a threat, for example is an individual saying they will not talk to someone again if they vote a certain way a threat, or is it that individual's right to choose who they talk to?
These types of definitions will develop and evolve over time.