I’ve been wondering lately just how much of each AIP voters actually read before casting their vote. Personally, I’d love to see a more informed voting populace, and while I’m not even sure if this is possible to implement here we go:
When reading the synopsis of a Live AIP on Snapshot, there is always a link to the full article. Discourse can track, by scrolling, which articles users have “read.” If it’s possible, would anyone be in favor of withholding/gating the ability to vote until the original article has been marked as “read” by the voter?
The pros: voters would need to take the time to at least click into the full, original proposal before casting their vote. Ideally, this leads to greater engagement with the AIP in question and hopefully a more informed vote.
The cons: such restrictions could impede routine voting, and additional hurdles might be perceived as antithetical to a freely accessible, democratic process. It might also be argued that the Snapshot synopsis should contain everything a voter might need to make an informed decision (which I’d disagree with).
Guess again? Important links in an AIP will get a few clicks vs. hundreds of voters.
@CryptoLogically - I’m all “In Favor” of anything that might push more informed voting. The best thing we could do to inspire uninformed voting, though it may seem ironic, is not to have discussions of AIPs in Spaces.
It isn’t an “official” outlet, the words spoken are totally unaccountable, and if the AIP is here then everything germane to it should be here for completion and ease of access.
Bad AIPs and hidden costs / agendas thrive in the disjointed ad-hoc Discord/Spaces/Discourse/elections system currently in place.
I’d bet we all presumed similarly at first, but learned the hard way that informed voting is uncommon.
We’re copying all the worst prone-to-failure-and-corruption systems known IRL, with no proper oversight or auditing, and (spoiler alert!) we’re getting similar uninformed voting with highly costly and impactful proposals passing with far less than 50% of the total vote … just like IRL.
Whales have stepped up to save the day last-minute on a few occasions. Hoping the same happens this week so some protections can maybe be put in place before its too late.
It’s an interesting discussion for sure… Similar but different, I was talking to a few Bored Canada members today at lunch about getting weekly voice calls in the server going where we can go through the proposals together. Pretty big delegation that we take seriously and recognize the weight of our votes.
You totally can/should @AllCityBAYC! But also FYI you can join existing weekly calls if times work for ya’ll, they’re done by the comms team through @ApeComms twitter and sometimes @ApeCoin too. Link to the last one (go to 16:45 if you want to jump directly to proposal discussion):
I generally like this idea if it’s simple, it won’t solve the problem in a major way, but it may help it by 2-5% (in terms of percentage of voters) and that’s great.
However, UX needs to be seamless, so if I scroll through proposal once, this needs to be remembered (ideally in database, but cookies may be ok too). So if close/come back to page, it remembers. These kind of features can add up to annoying UX if not polished properly like the way I mention here.
I appreciate the idea of restricting voting to educated voters… is there potentially a situation where an English as a second language individuals could be restricted even though they are informed through other means? What channels could be provided to educate voters by other means? Does every AIP receive a video explanation as well for vision impaired? I like the concept, just thinking about outliers.
To me I think those that vote do actually read before voting. But I do agree some may just vote based on the title of the AIP or just speed reading before fully going thru in depth the essence and importance of the AIP to fully understand it before casting their vote
I like the concept completely. It should undoubtedly be a qualification to have some knowledge in regards to what someone is casting a vote on. If that’s reading the vote in it’s entirety, I would do so.
How about a TLDR video attached to proposals? I guess that’s another AIP idea…
I think it’s a fascinating idea to require voters to read the full proposal before casting their vote. It would certainly help ensure that voters are more informed and engaged in the decision-making process. However, I can also see some potential drawbacks to this approach.
On the one hand, requiring voters to read the full proposal before voting would encourage greater engagement and discussion around the proposal, which could lead to better decision-making. By ensuring that voters have access to all of the relevant information before casting their vote, we can help ensure that the outcome of the vote is more reflective of the will of the community. Even reduce the ratio of abstain votes (related to this topic).
On the other hand, there is a risk that such a requirement could be perceived as antithetical to a freely accessible, democratic process. Additionally, it could impede routine voting for those who may not have the time or resources to read through every proposal in full.
Overall, I think it’s a worthwhile discussion to have, and there may be ways to implement this approach without creating unnecessary barriers to participation. Perhaps we could consider offering a summary of the proposal, with a clear indication that a full article is available for those who want to learn more, @SeraStargirl and @Halina.eth making great job in that matter. This could help strike a balance between encouraging engagement and ensuring accessibility.
Having a clue what one is voting on isn’t a barrier to participation, it’s a basic requirement. At least ethically. If we make it an official requirement, even in some small way, so much the better, and much better than IRL voting where the major problem is self-serving and uninformed voting.
Voting is a responsibility, not just a right. If one can’t bother to read what they’re voting for, one shouldn’t be voting.
But regardless this is a mute point tbh since people who don’t want to read, won’t. They’ll just scroll to the bottom / wait for timer to end so the vote buttons are enabled (whichever system is implemented). All this here does is encourages people to read. But it doesn’t (and no system will) prevent people from voting without reading, if they really want to go that route.
We should encourage people to read, imho. A whole lotta money is at stake!