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

[Alexander Praetorius <citizen AT serapath.de>]

I would propose, that someone, wether it's Michael Allen, Conseo or ThomasE, should present VOTOROLA at an upcoming InternationalEDemocracyTalk in order to have an audio protocol and maybe a presentation that could be linked to from the AG Meinungsfindungstool's Wiki Page.

I think Thomas already presented Votorola in the past, but it wasnt an official InternationalEDemocracyTalk, and only some members of AG Meinungsfindungstool were present. There is also no audio protocol nor a powerpoint presentation or similar that could be linked to.

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Thomas von der Elbe <ThomasvonderElbe AT gmx.de> wrote:

@ Michael Allan:

Slash said:

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.

I don't think you are speaking of something else, Mike. Rating each others positions/statements is part of what Votorola does. And it is part of the _expression_ of my own opinion.

@ Slash:

Basically it's worth it a try and everyone can and is supposed to do what
he wants. My personal view, however, is, that it would be more real
transparent, if the end results of such developments were stressed.
The way up to these end results often contains information, which
consist of mistaken assumptions and so are practically 'noise'.

Slash, you must be misunderstanding Mike. In his wording the developments which lead to the end results would be the discussion which leads to consensus. And I know, you don't see the discussion as noise.

@ Marc:

Michael Allan wrote

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 ...

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?

Yes. Mike is describing that too. Votorola is a tool, where everybody can express his opinion and form groups with others and express their common opinion. In a way you could say: the whole use of expressing your opinion is to reach others, discuss with them and find a common opinion.

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.

Exactly!

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

I agree.

We are talking about the same and we have the same goal, believe it or not. :-)


Thomas

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

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: Start AT metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

--

Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

***********************************************

Alexander Praetorius

Rappstraße 13

D - 60318 Frankfurt am Main

Germany

[skype] alexander.praetorius

[mail] citizen AT serapath.de

[web] http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath 

***********************************************