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

[Slash <pirate_slash AT yahoo.com>]

Where's the problem ? :P
https://wiki.piratenpartei.de/AG_Meinungsfindungstool#Protokolle
The entry before the last one, and there it is...

Greetings,
/ aka Oliverr

Alexander Praetorius schrieb:

> Where is the 3rd International E-Democracy Talk Audio Protocol and which 
> pad was used for makeing notes?
>
> Thomas von der Elbe schrieb:
> > @ 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 schrieb:
> > > > > 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 
> > > > > 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
> >
> > --
> > Ag-meinungsfindungstool mailing list
> > Ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.__piratenpartei.de 
> > http://mailto:Ag-meinungsfindungstool%5Bat%5Dlists.piratenpartei.de
> > https://service.piratenpartei.__de/listinfo/ag-__meinungsfindungstool 
> > https://service.piratenpartei.de/listinfo/ag-meinungsfindungstool
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------Best 
> Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> ***********************************************
> Alexander Praetorius
> Rappstraße 13
> D - 60318 Frankfurt am Main
> Germany
> *[skype] *alexander.praetorius
> *[mail] *citizen[at]serapath.de 
> http://mailto:alexander.praetorius%5Bat%5Dserapath.de
> *[web] *http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath
> ***********************************************