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

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Roger Eaton said:
> I'm not sure what you mean by micro-decision.  The discussion might
> be about nuclear disarmament and the decision period might be on the
> question of adopting a nuclear convention.  Theoretically there is
> no limit to the number of people who can participate.  Not exactly a
> micro issue, but clearly InterMix is not a yes-no voting system.  It
> is more a way of creating a consensus building collective stream of
> consciousness.

"Micro" here refers not to the scale of participation, but rather to
the granularity of issue.  A full nuclear convention is definitely a
macro-decision.  For more on micro vs. macro-scale granularity, please
see these discussions:
https://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/genassem-public-debate-of-legislation-and-caselaw-in-a-way-that-just-makes-sense/
https://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/civiq-shows-structure-in-natural-opinion-flow-and-visualises-opinion-change-in-public-deliberations/

If InterMix can be used to express approval or disapproval of
macro-decisions *before* those decisions are made, and thus serve to
guide those decisions, then it's a primary system.  But I still have a
question that relates to this.  May I freely change my expression of
approval after submitting it?  Or what are the restrictions?

And do these on-the-fly changes of approval work differently in
different contexts.  Say for ordinary messages vs. messages in
decision periods?

Mike


Roger Eaton said:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thanks for the hint about text vs html messages.  I will discuss with
> Flemming and we will see what we can do.  Perhaps we should have a choice
> up front whether the new participant prefers text or html.  Or perhaps we
> should adopt your idea of always sending both.
> 
> Group membership is not a vote.  Rather every message can be rated for
> approval (-3 to +3) and for interest (0 to +4).  The system calculates the
> "value" of each message as its average approval times its average interest,
> so the value can run from -12 to +12.
> 
> There is a facility built into InterMix which can be used as a voting
> mechanism.  The basics are that individuals join groups and groups join
> open-ended discussions and discussions may have "decision periods".  It is
> in the decision periods that something like primary voting occurs.  However
> InterMix is not a yes or no voting system, so perhaps it doesn't qualify.
> 
> For instance, each of the mailing lists in this email could be a group.
> Then the groups could join together in a discussion on "Primary Voting".
> Within that discussion, there might be a "Decision Period" on the topic
> "Should we implement Vote Mirroring?".  Within the decision period, each
> participant can enter one candidate message and there is free-form
> discussion by replying to eachothers messages.  At the end of the decision
> period, the candidate message with the highest value wins.  The elected
> message is not necessarily going to say yes or no to Vote Mirroring.
> Someone might say, first we have to have preliminary analysis.  That
> message could be elected and so in that case, we do not get a yes or no
> answer.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by micro-decision.  The discussion might be
> about nuclear disarmament and the decision period might be on the question
> of adopting a nuclear convention.  Theoretically there is no limit to the
> number of people who can participate.  Not exactly a micro issue, but
> clearly InterMix is not a yes-no voting system.  It is more a way of
> creating a consensus building collective stream of consciousness.
> 
> So if you think InterMix not suitable for inclusion, no problem.
> 
> thanks for responding,
> 
> -- 
> Roger Eaton
> +1 415 933 0153
> intermix.org