Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
I'm drafting an anti-censorship speech against Canadian Bill-C9 to deliver on Saturday, in Windsor, Ontario.
The audience will likely be mostly religious and/or Conservative Party supporters. Not sure how many freedom folks will be there, certainly a bunch. More than half of our local freedom folks are Christians. It's a full spectrum of awareness, from those who know as much as me, to those who know little to nothing.
Of course general feedback is welcomed.
If you have the time and inclination, feel free to draft up some words to fill in where I've clearly not finished. (I have a busy couple weeks ahead. Out testing big speakers and mics today. Gonna get a mixer.) Clear, concise, catchy is preferred.
Progress will be updated:
https://Projex.Wiki/wiki/Anti-Bill_C9_Speech
I also plan on printing out copies to distribute - so folks can look up issues themselves. Also distributing invites as we're also hosting a couple meetings Sunday - an all-day freedom meeting/birthday, plus a creative media networking hub, unfortunately on the same day.
It seems to me there is a very good reason for taking the time today to think carefully and clearly on the subject of human rights, because in the acceptance and observance of these rights lies the root, I believe, of our chance to improve our mission in Windsor, and Ontorio and Canada.
We must not be confused about what freedom is. Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.
We must not be deluded by the efforts of the forces of reaction to prostitute the great words of our free tradition and thereby to confuse the struggle. Democracy, freedom, human rights have come to have a definite meaning to the people of the world which we must not allow Canada to so change that they are made synonymous with suppression and dictatorship.
Very nice. But I've already covered most of that.
Fluffy - not a call to action nor actionable, and not educational.
Seems like you didn't read the work in progress so far.
I'm trying to provide greater context on their greater agenda and how speech overlaps with these issues that need very brief overviews and connections to speech.
Some sections are done, but open to tweaking.
It's the incomplete that need attention first.
https://erpapers.columbian.gwu.edu/struggle-human-rights-1948
Do you want me to reference the United Nations when we're resisting the United Nations and their Agenda 2030?
You noted, "of course general feedback is welcomed." I offered the best speech on free speech. It's feedback.
Right-wing attacks on the UN Agenda 2030 are typical big oil bootlicking approaches that continue to cause war crimes and authoritarianism (no free speech) worldwide. So yeah, don't support Big Oil, for those reasons.
Your feedback wasn't about my work-in-progress speech.
In my speech I already included the best speech by Mario Savio. And other quotes.
Clearly you haven't read what I've written. At all.
Free speech is covered.
Communications are only a small part of it that these Conservatives and Christians need to learn about.
The engineered managed decline, economic collapse, and world war, are happening this year to usher in the New World Order.
The technocracy, digital IDs and currencies are the future trap that MUST be resisted.
That is orchestrated by Zionists - for global full spectrum dominance, and the enslavement of humanity.
It all ties together.
This is not about Right or Left or even Big Oil, socks.
This is about complete totalitarian control of all things on Earth.
I'm not socks. You wanted input. You got it, but you reply with criticisms.
Text post, didn't get +3.
Text posts don't have a bonus attached to them. I'm debating adding a +1 to it, but even that's not a thing right now. The +3 is the comment bonus. Have three pretty recent comments and get +3 on your next post. +3 is a lot. But it's meant to be a pretty steep incentive to avoid a wall of zero-comment posts.
Different kinds of users tend to either post more or comment more or vote more. I just managed to get 90% users who like to post more than other things. That's not bad but it would be nice if we had more folks with the other profile. And unfortunately, there is a positive feedback loop. Low commenting leads to low commenting because there are fewer comments to comment off of. Then users mainly interested in commenting will have a higher attrition rate and have a lower adoption rate. But I'd rather use a carrot because posting itself is good. I don't want to punish people who post. I want to reward people who comment. So the idea is to figure out how to get at least a few of the people who are motivated to post to help recessitate the comment situation. I can ask. But ultimately, that ask post only lasts for a day. It would get old if I posted it every day. So I can create an incentive that people motivated to post will benefit from. That's the logic anyway.
So that's why no bonus is as high as that one. +3 is practically too much, but apparently not. I may have to increase it. That or reduce the requirement to two comments, with one of them being a first comment on a post, so that we get more conversation starts.
Then it's false advertising. I only mention it again because it's seemed broken for some time. (Also, all three - link, text, poll - say the same thing: "Submit a link post". Not to get all woke, but I wish there was a better word than "submit".)
I'm an irregular poster and an irregular commenter.
It all depends on my time to interact, as well as having something of interest worthy of opining on. Many posts and comments have nothing to discuss.
Perhaps consider rewarding post-post instead of pre-post - so the posts that generate more discussion get the bonus. Ideally, thoughtful posts would generate thoughtful discussions, but sometimes it's all fun and games. In this way, you're rewarding both the content and the behaviour, rather than making us jump through hoops to get otherwise unearned bonus points just to be seen. The bonus points directly integrated with votes never sat well with me, confusing the actual popularity. Commented posts would at least earn the extra weight on top of the updoots. You could even add the number of comments (and comment updoots) to the weight of the post updoot number, preferably in the ranking algo, not the popularity score. Especially since rank already does not equal popularity (ie. a new post may rank higher than an old popular post). It's a difference with a distinction. Ranks change, and popularity is tampered with, so neither are a qualitative measure. Maybe rather than a separate bonus number to clutter things, you could just add "+3 interactive" and other badges to posts, keeping folks aware and striving for them.
Another new idea: A ranking-expando in a frame could list the points, expressions, calculations, whatever, and how the algo processes them, for those curious to peek behind the curtain.
I guess I'm not quite understanding where the false advertizing is. At no place does it indicate there is a bonus point(s) for sumbmitting a text post. The hover over says "Get 3 extra starting points by making three comments before posting."
There is no concept of a pre-post or post-post to confuse people as you mentioned. Those aren't terms that exist. If you have those terms in your head causing confusion I suggest giving your brain a flush.
So your solution is to make things more complicated. You're already having trouble tracking something that is very simple. No site is completely fair. They all choose an algorithm for what they want to reward. Helping the site out in one dimension to get a boost in another (which is available to everyone) is completely fair. There is more choice over the algorithm here than any other place. If someone wants a different metric for popularity they can have it. At other places that's not offered. Here it is.
You are confusing everyone, and yourself, and creating a controversy where there isn't one.
If there is feedback that I need I'll take it. But I'd need it from someone who is less confused in general because things are likely to just get more twisted taking guidence from someone who reads "make three comments" as "make a text post."
Posts that generate more discussion already get a bonus. The recentness and comment count is a significant sort factor in the default sort. But that way of handling rewarding posts that get more comments is people can remove that if they want by adjusting their sort factors, giving them control.
Why can't you just accept a simple feature for what it is. That's less complicated than coming up with all kinds of theories for how you think it should work. You can take the feature or leave it. But if you want to use it you'd have to learn how to use it, which is honestly easy when you aren't distracted by 50 million of your own ideas that I'm not going to implement. Maybe I do make things more complicated than some other sites. But if I implemented yours it would be worse. But honestly, you make them more complicated than they actually are.
I'm not making this up.
Call them before-post-rewards and after-post-rewards if you like. The terms are not the point. You're not understanding what I'm saying.
I'm suggesting you give people rewards AFTER they make a good post that's interactive with comments.
Rather than give people rewards BEFORE a post that may or may not be interactive.
You'd still generate participation, and reward active (presumably good) posts, but not reward "dud" posts.
You could even ramp it: 1 point for 1 comment, 2 for 2, 3 for 3 or more.
Unnecessary. I'm trying to help.
Votes manipulated with unmarked bonuses are not a clear nor authentic measure.
I didn't say it wasn't.
I've always said that I'd like to see the boosts separate from the real vote number (or simply hidden with the rest of that algo expression) but evident in the ranking.
And my new idea still does this, but inversed.
At some places you pay then eat (fast food), and others you eat then pay (or maybe don't pay if it's inedible).
We can make a poll and ask folks if this is true or not. I don't think it is.
I'm not making this up.
I'm trying to help.
I disagree.
But it's not my site, I'm not a coder, so by default and veto you win, correct or not.
I'm not a Canadian Citizen, but if I was I'd support your speech.
@hfxbooya @WinstonSmith @Neol