Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] List of primary voting projects

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Hi Roger,

Thanks for answering my questions.

> Good idea.  I would be happy to join with you in the Vote Mirroring
> proposal.  Is there anything I need to do at this point beyond
> sending you this information?:
> 
> InterMix Voices of Humanity Software <http://intermix.org>.  Giving
> collective voices to groups, and to the genders and ages of
> humanity.  Contact Roger Eaton +1 415 933-0153 - intermix.org.

I've wanted to invite InterMix, and there's still time.  But first I
need to understand the voting facility.  Free-range voting only
applies to primary votes, you see.  And as I mentioned earlier, I had
the impression that InterMix was more for micro-decisions, sort of
like Vilfredo.  So, back to our other thread:

> Thanks, for logging in Mike.  Wasn't your password emailed to you in
> the message that had the confirmation link?
>
> I will forward your message to the programmer.  If you had a
> problem, then there is a problem.

Yes, now I see it.  That explains the problem.  The confirmation
message was sent in HTML only, but I have a plain text mail client:
http://www.mutt.org/

(Hi Flemming: When mailing HTML, which is somewhat non-standard, it's
recommend to send multi-part HTML and text.  Not HTML alone.)

> InterMix messages have two rating settings on the upper right border of
> each message, for interest and for approval.  Average interest times
> average approval is calculated as the "value" of the message.

But the message might be something more than "eggs big-end up", ofc.
It might be something like, "We should impose a ban on whaling," or
"The UN should move its headquarters to Antarctica."  Right?

And to my question:
> > ...  Is it my membership in the big-endian group, for example,
> > which means a vote for big end up?

You seem to be answering, "No.  Approvals (primary votes) for messages
such as "big-end up", "UN to Antarctica" and so forth are
independent of group membership.  Membership is not a vote.

> At the group level, we are going to implement automatic tweeting and
> facebook posting of the messages with the highest  value on an ongoing
> basis.  This we call the "voice" of the group.
> 
> Groups join discussions and discussions can have "decision periods".
> There can be multiple groups in the same discussion.  Currently both
> discussions and decision periods are set by the admin, but down the
> road we want to have a bottom-up mechanism to do that.

May I withdraw my approval after having second thoughts?  Or extend my
approval to a message that I'd earlier disapproved of, or ignored?

Mike


> Within a decision period there are two phases, again controlled by the
> admin at this point.  In the first, the default sort for the forum shows
> only messages not yet rated by the user from the decision period in date
> order, newest first.  In the second phase, the default sort still shows
> only unrated messages, but now they are in descending value order (with
> appropriate regression to the mean for messages that have fewer ratings).
> 
> The above setup is meant to be a rough workaround of the problem that there
> are too many messages for everyone to read them all.  We are not trying to
> be scientific, just to find an agreeable collective expression for the
> members of all the groups together in the discussion.  The method just has
> to be reasonable so it is not too burdensome, yet the group members feel
> the process is fair.
> 
> At the end of each decision period, the "results" of the decision are
> listed on the "results" page, with an overall winner and also a winner for
> each group and for each of the voices of humanity: women, men, youth,
> middle-age (voice of experience) and seniors (voice of wisdom).
> 
> There is a lot more - we think we can allow groups and networks to choose
> their place in a bottom-up hierarchy without anyone being offended or
> feeling misused.  Likewise we might - just might - be able to put together
> a bottom-up hierarchy of subjects.
> 
> The larger idea is to bring in NGOs generally and then by mixing their
> memberships together, create a global village where the nations and
> religions each have a voice, and the six voices of humanity, including the
> voice of humanity as one, create a global collective consciousness.  I
> believe a collective global consciousness is the starting point for any
> kind of effective global action.  The nation-state system is not working
> well enough and needs to be supplemented by a global system.
> 
> Anyways, thanks, for taking a look!  I think we will have to consider the
> possibility of the user specifying a password at signup instead of having
> one assigned automatically, just to reduce confusion.  I bet you will find
> the password on the email we sent, but you didn't notice it.  And if you
> didn't notice it, others will also not see it.
> 
> For anyone who would like to take a look - just go to intermix.org and read
> the first paragraph - it explains how to join up the alpha testing we are
> doing.
> 
> I am copying InterMix programmer Flemming Funch.
> 
> atb,
> 
> -- Roger Eaton
> USA 415 933 0153
> intermix.org
> 
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > I was thinking InterMix was more for micro-decisions like Vilfredo.
> > The UN scenario does sound like an example of primary voting, but what
> > form does a vote take?  Is it my membership in the big-endian group,
> > for example, which means a vote for big end up?
> >
> > I like the whimsical atmosphere of InterMix.  E-democracy often takes
> > itself too seriously. :^)
> >
> > I don't have much time to participate, but I wanted to have a look.
> > The sign up process took my email address and mailed me a challenge
> > URL (HTML only, should also be a text part) which I visited.  But it
> > had no apparent effect.  Also, I see that I'm "logged in" even though
> > I did not set a password.  I could set one now, I suppose, but it's
> > asking me for the old one.
> >
> > Mike