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

[Pietro Speroni di Fenizio <metagovernment AT pietrosperoni.it>]

I would love to hear this!

For the occasion I will probably be in Germany, too :-)


Cheers,
Pietro

On 24 October 2012 12:25, Alexander Praetorius <citizen AT serapath.de> wrote:
> 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
> ***********************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>