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

["marc" <marc AT merkstduwas.de>]

Michael Allan wrote
> Marc and Slash,
> Thanks for replying.  I didn't phrase my question properly, so please
> let me try again.

> Marc said:
> > 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:

> 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:

> 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.)

Opinion formation - as you described it - is a process over one's mind, 
right?
What about groups? Do they have a collective opinion formation process also?

IMHO the most relevant part is to compare different opinions with eachother. 
The discussion should evolve from a infinite amount of opinions into just 
some variations. Therfore group building processes might be fundamental to 
reach consensus. Or in other words like Slash said:

> 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?  ;^)

IMHO it is one part of the puzzle and the basics needs to be reflected 
somehow in the domain model standardization. But the details are to be 
handled by the plug-ins or individual implementations. So I think that can 
be addressed by

participant has opinion
group consits of participants
group has position

And of course, the process to get to a groups position is far more complex 
;o)

What do you think?

Cheers
Marc