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

[Roger Eaton <rogerweaton AT gmail.com>]

Yes, then InterMix is definitely a primary system.  The point is to generate consensus while maintaining diversity.  

Generally you can change your approval and interest ratings.  Even during a decision period, you can change your ratings for candidate messages.  However for candidate messages in completed decision periods, you cannot change your ratings.  Results for decison periods are frozen when the period ends. 

Candidate messages are always the root message of a thread within a decision period.  Replies to candidate messages are not limited and even after the end of a decision period, you can still add new replies.  Also you can continue to change your evaluation of replies indefinitely. 

I am glad to see CiviQ and GenAssem and all the primary systems on your list and feel it an excellent idea to try vote mirroring, though clearly it is going to be tough, since each primary system has its own approach.  

On a separate issue, I discussed with Flemming the question of html vs text email and we have added giving the participant the option of receiving text or html to our list of things to do.  It's down the list, tho.  As far as we know, almost everyone (clearly yourself excepted) uses an email reader that handles html as a matter of course.  

Thanks again, Mike.   If I am passing through Toronto, I will look you up for sure.  

-- Roger Eaton
+1 415 933 0153
intermix.org

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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