Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

General note: I hope to reserve this thread for discussing the problem
of split opinion formation.  If folks have questions or concerns about
the AG's Common Business Entity Model, or modeling in general, please
direct them to this other thread:
http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2012-October/005052.html


Marc and Slash,

Thanks for replying.  I didn't phrase my question properly, so please
let me try again.

Marc said:
> Even if it is very hard for me to find the right words in english, I
> appreciate our discussion!
> 
> Hope you are lenient toward me ;o)

No, it was my mistake.  I was the one using the wrong words.  :-)

> Hmm, I'm not sure if we missed the point here. Voting in the sense
> of 'to make a decision' is not part of the [Discussion] System we
> are talking about.  It's part of the Decision System.

Yes, I agree.  The problem was my phrase "voting tool".  I shouldn't
be using that expression.  Voting is just an implementation detail (a
means, a mechanism) and not a choice category for tools (T).  So here
I re-phrase my question:


  (1)        ....
          ..........  M
        ..............   ....
       .......................
       ......................
        .............   ....
          ..........
             ...


            +-----+  +-----+
            |     |  |     |
            | T1  |  | T2  |
            |     |  |     |
            +-|-|-+  +-|-|-+
    +---------|-|------|-|---+
    |         | |      | |   |
    |                        |
    |    S                   |
    |                        |
    +------------------------+


     M  Opinion in formation
     T  Competing tools
     S  Common standards, practices,
        databases, and so forth


Suppose T1 and T2 are opinion expression tools.  An opinion expression
tool is one that takes the individual opinions of users and publishes
a composite result that reveals the overall shape of opinion (M) as it
forms, including the pattern of consensus and dissensus, and related
details.  So when a user wants to express his (or her) opinion in a
wider social context, he picks up his favourite opinion expression
tool (say T2) and tells it his opinion.  The tool does the rest, and
out emerges the wider picture.  For example:


  (2)                  my opinion (one dot)
             ....         |
          ..........      V
        ..............   ....  -+
       .......................  |  dissensus, or
       ......................   |  budding counter
        .............   ....    |  consensus here
          ..........           -+
             ...
      |               |
      +---------------+
       rough consensus
          over here


This particular opinion expression tool (T2) shows each user's opinion
as a single dot in some kind of 2-dimensional opinion space.  I don't
know if this a great visualization, but there it is.  Other tools may
improve on it; maybe T1 is better.  The user may choose whichever he
prefers because T1 and T2 are compliant plug-ins of S.

How do you guys feel about opinion expression, as I describe it?
(Myself, again, I feel it's very important to reveal the shape of
opinion as it develops.  And I think active, continuous expression is
the best approach.  Whether or not this is done with voting mechanisms
of some stripe is not directly relevant.  I shouldn't speak of that.)


Slash said:
> 1. The use of the discussion system is not only to form oneself's
> opinion, but also and especially to form the group's opinion and
> making this totally visible.

OK, that sounds like what I'm calling "opinion expression".

> 2. Rating will definitifely play a central role within most of the
> opinion forming tool plug-ins.  Every argument or key aspect
> statement could need a rating...

I agree that such evaluations are also important.  But you see my
mistake I hope, and understand I'm speaking of something else.

Again, I'm interested in the views of anyone in the group.  What do
you think of this notion of opinion expression?  Is it good, bad or
just plain ugly?  ;^)

Michael


marc said:
> Michael Allan wrote:
> >Marc said:
> >> Yes, that's what our working group tries to establish. ...  And even
> >> more, if the user starts with T1 and then recognizes that T2 fits
> >> better to his needs, than he can just switch over to T2, if T2
> >> provides a migration path to the Common Business Entity Model (CBEM)
> >> ;o)
> 
> >Okay, sounds good.  So let's assume that both T1 and T2 are compliant
> >plug-ins (i.e compliant with S).  This means the user can easily
> >switch back and forth.  This is the ideal, I agree.
> 
> >Now suppose T1 and T2 are voting tools.  There are different kinds of
> >tools, of course, each with its own competing instances.  But I want
> >to look specifically at voting tools.  I see that voting is part of
> >the model under the category of "assessment", if I understand.
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure if we missed the point here. Voting in the sense of 'to 
> make a decision' is not part of the Descussion System we are talking about. 
> It's part of the Decision System.
> 
> >http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/wiki/images/4/45/DSFS-BusinessEntityModel.jpg
> >(I opened a separate thread to discuss model details)
> 
> It's more about Rating (as I tried to clarify on the other thread) and 
> forming one's opinion.
> 
> >Suppose further that these two voting tools (T1 and T2) are designed
> >to reveal and express the shape of opinion (M) as it forms.  Whenever
> >a user wants to know the general pattern of consensus and dissensus,
> >or related details, he/she can pick up his favourite voting tool (say
> >T2) and read the information from it.
> 
> >How do you feel about this?  Are you comfortable with voting being
> >used for this purpose?  (Myself, I feel it's very important to reveal
> >the shape of opinion as it emerges.  And I think active, continuous
> >voting is generally the best approach for this.)
> 
> Yes. If we can agree on 'VOTING' to be read as 'RATING'.
> 
> >How do others in the group feel?  I wish I could ask my question in
> >German, because I'm interested in hearing the views of anyone who
> >wants to speak.
> 
> The working group has consensus about the trisection of the tool based 
> process of decision-making into Information, Discussion and Decision System.
> 
> Therefore I think the working group member all agree on 'VOTING' to be 
> located in the Decision System and 'RATING' to be located in the 
> 'Discussion 
> System'. This is because we want to distinguish between the more formal 
> process of decision, that needs to be conform with legal law, and the 
> process of discussion that is free of all juridical rules.
> 
> 
> Even if it is very hard for me to find the right words in english, I 
> appreciate our discussion!
> 
> Hope you are lenient toward me ;o)
> 
> Cheers
> Marc 


Slash said:
> I have to make it short, because it's late:
> 
> 2 Points:
> 1. The use of the discussion system is not only to form oneself's opinion,
> but also and especially to form the group's opinion and making this totally
> visible.
> 2. Rating will definitifely play a central role within most of the opinion
> forming tool plug-ins. Every argument or key aspect statement could
> need a rating... The tricky thing is this:
> There are different rating types.
> There will be plug-in's only with thumb up and down for the whole
> argument/key aspect statement/etc. ... and there will be plug-ins
> with a more sophisticated approach where you rate an argument
> in three different aspects (importance, correctness,
> easy-to-understanding, just for instance).
> And I fear, that plug-in's with 2 different rating types won't be able
> to share their rating data, because they're producing totally different
> types of rating data.
> And I think that this example gives a good insight in the difficulties of
> this approach of the whole rudimentary discussion-system with it's
> plug-ins. The more rudimentary similarities a plug-in has with the
> rest of the discussion platform, the more it benefits from the platform.
> So totally freaky unique plug-in approaches, making everything
> fundamentally different than anyone else ever thought of before,
> will have the least benefit of the plattform.
> But on the other hand, of course, it's important to have diversity and
> differences, because after all, this platform is about testing out
> different approaches ;) ...
> it's meant to be an ideal development environment for developers and a
> handy tool for the community at the same time. It is supposed to be
> useful for everyone right from the start and be the most efficient, 
> shortest
> way to make progress developing higher, more optimal forms of
> a discussion system.
> 
> Just one detail - world premier, never uttered before ! :D
> At the bottom of the discussion system site should be a feedback
> area, which is nicely designed and collects feedback of the community
> for the different plug-ins with a smart system, so that the people
> really think through their decissions... maybe by only making it
> possible for them to give 3 points as a whole for all listed suggestions 
> for
> improvement regarding a plug-in, so that they can't and won't vote for
> all suggestions, but only the currently most important for them...
> well, and from there the feedback goes to the developers, so that they
> always see, what improvement the community currently wants to be
> applied the most...
> 
> I like the thought of designing the discussion system so, that it is strong
> where LQFB is weak; and a lively feedbeck system, which is practically
> considered by the developers, definetively would be one point to reach 
> this.
> 
> Greeting,
> / aka Oliver