(cross-posted as a comment on Jake's blog disenchanted):

Hey neighbor Jake,
Hey community,

I am amazed that some of the disenchanted continue to sling mud and complain that the zaadz admins are trying to silence us, especially since it has been brought to the attention of all here (numerous times) that previous to the launch of the Trust System, an individual could be effectively silenced (or far more likely, reminded of their responsibilities to the community) by an elite few. If they wanted to have the exclusive power to silence you, they would not hand that power off to the community.

There is no such thing as absolute immunity in a culture that values responsibility. We all must be willing to be held accountable for our choices and actions, if we wish to live in a culture that is evolving towards genuine democracy. And we must also be willing to hold others accountable for their actions. It's not supposed to be easy and light and perpetually free of conflict. A system that refuses to attribute gradations of value and to make ethical, rational, and aesthetic distinctions is a system that does not value our deepest Being nor encourage its continuous revelation.

But let me make clear that I understand the temptation to feel betrayed by a system of evaluation. When you have suffered the wound of not being inherently valued and honored, of not being recognized as inherently worthy (and I believe most of us in the postmodern world carry this cross), all systems/philosophies that assign value seem suspect and potentially corrupt. The key is to see that your essence is beyond all judgement and evaluation; it is simply and luminously perfect and incorruptible.

An operational system that doesn't take into account in its design not only the inherent goodness and worth of all members of the community but also the shadow element of the human psyche and its inevitable and common expressions, is, IMO, naive and unsustainable.

I believe that Jake considered these things in his invention and design of this system, and yet of course, a system as ambitious and enlightened in its intentions as this will necessarily be flawed. I appreciate the helpful criticism of the system offered by some of those who had some specific comments and suggestions to make. David's original point is salient: that people (all of us, zaadzsters are not in the least exempt from this condition) have shadows and as a result will sometimes (count on it) use their powers irresponsibly (anonymous negative seeding, for example). I think the zaadz team recognized the validity of his point, were responsive and responsible, and they changed the system immediately.

A system where judgment has NO place is not enlightened, it's delusional. Freedom from evaluation is not responsibility and enlightenment, it's an attempt to escape from the pain of deeper wounds, and it is a dizzy dance of intoxication and indulgence in the privileges of liberty without the gravity of responsibility and humility.

I know from experience that the pain of those deep wounds can be healed, that everyone of us can come to know and feel the truth of our absolute beauty, goodness, and worth, the perfection of Being that is also always becoming. Liberated from the misperceptions and mistaken identities engineered by conditioned shame and primal fear, we will joyfully and soberly embrace responsibility.

No democratic system of evaluation will be even close to perfect. The “most valuable” designations will reflect what is most valuable to the vocal majority. And unless/until the majority recognizes and privileges the values of wisdom, compassion, and truth,
the “hottest” people, content, etc. will offer glamour, hipness, and more superficial appeal over substance and depth and wisdom. The most popular will “win” out over the most sublime. But that is a dilemma built-in to our psyches; zaadz did not create it. I believe that their seed system attempts to acknowledge that difficult fact, build in some safeguards against the tyrannies of groupthink and irresponsible use of one's power, and at the same time entrust us with the power of creating value. And in that process, perhaps we will evolve, learn some things, and our values will deepen to embrace Essence and that which expresses the good, the true, and the beautiful. Perhaps we will empower ourselves via continuous, moment-by-moment, response ability.

Robert Augustus Masters speaks eloquently about trust in this essay. I am stealing some of his lines here:

“For me to trust you means that I, having consistently witnessed your integrity and reliability, have an abiding confidence that you will continue to manifest such qualities. Trust as such is not an a priori stance, but a result. Blind trust is not trust, but rather a cocktail of foolhardiness and hope.

 The deeper our mutual trust, the deeper our relationship can go, so long as that trust is rooted not in naiveté, but in a mutuality that’s anchored in transparency, integrity (or embodied incorruptibility), and love. Trust should not be automatically given; it must be earned…

If I am untrustworthy in certain areas, don’t override your concerns just because I am so wonderful in other ways; don’t let my good points obscure or marginalize my not-so-good points. Relate to me as I am, rather than having a relationship with my trustworthiness potential…

 When we are truly connected, even the arising of disconnection is okay. In fact, trusting each other with our disconnectedness only deepens our mutual trust… 

When it’s time to trust, do so, even if you’re afraid to do so. Better at such times to have trusted and gotten hurt, than not to have trusted.”