Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Anybody checked out placeavote.com?

[Alexander Praetorius <citizen AT serapath.de>]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:

Martin said:
> ... finding a way to moderate a bigger discussion. Voting is only

> part of it, facilitating discussion, moderation, identity and trust

> management are other parts. ... I think you are much deeper into

> that then most around here. Hence my surprise that you think this
> won't matter!

Sure it matters!  My own surprise is to find anyone else who thinks
so!  That's why I hang out in the AG Meinungsfindungstool list (though
I don't know German).  They're the only other tech folks I know who
understand the priority of discussion and opinion-forming systems.

Now if only they understood the structural utility of votes for that
purpose, then we might be working together.  Unfortunately they see
votes as mostly for decision systems, like everyone else.

AFAIK we never made a survey and i do not feel that "voting" would only be necessary for decision systems, but yeah, what can we do :-)

 

> As for the Aggregator, frankly - No, it doesn’t make sense to me. I
> believe you are onto something but I am not quite able to grasp it.
> Votes won’t be public, maybe opinions. If you wanted to aggregate
> them you could simply use google news and filter a bit. Certainly
> you will have the fun stuff that draws in users.

Yes, the content would be opinions (think water), but the structural
form that carries that content across long distances would be votes
(think aquaducts).  But don't picture *decision* votes here or you'll
miss the point.  It's not a decision situation (freezes), but rather a
discussion and opinion situation (flows).

So here's the situation we're working to support (all of us, I speak
as a non-Pirate).  People are out there in the world discussing some
issue that might later be decided in a separate, central decision
system (it's always central).  That upcoming decision might be months
away, or years away, but no matter; they're curious to learn what the
correct decision would be.  In other words, they want to reach a rough
consensus before the fact.  So they argue for alternative courses of
action and express opinions on which is best.  So far, so good.  This
much is already possible out there, with or without digital democracy
sites, tools, etc.

But the participants are spread across many discussion sites that are
independent of any central control or coordination.  This complicates
things for the newcomer (important) who wants to orient himself, or
for the existing participant who wants to catch up on developments.
For these purposes, the most important information is the current
shape of aggregate opinion.  What are the alternative choices that
people are discussing?  What is the level of support for each?

This is the top view of the issue at a glance (think headlines).
Without it, we're unlikely to see much of a discussion; the newcomers
simply won't come.  Yet only a vote aggregator can project such a top
view.  It's fairly simple to hack together (I've done it in a test
prototype).  We just scrape the votes from where people are talking
about the issue, translate them to a common form, then publish the
totals for everyone to see.  For source sites that lack a voting
facility, we stick a vote button on the aggregator itself.

Basically we jump *on top* of the whole show, loosen the "reins", and
hang on tight.  (Are there any Cowboys out there?  You Pirates are
difficult to convince. ;-)

> Meanwhile, how about you help pushing a viable platform? It’ll make
> later aggregation even easier because you know all the details!

I'm open to that (thanks).  I guess we're all looking for that first
viable platform.  I see viable things we can do, but I don't know if
I'll convince anyone.  Meantime I'll keep working with my experimental
prototypes and documenting some of the technology we've hammered out
over the years.  My newer docs are rights reserved till I learn where
to publish them; I might have to publish in academic journals to get
the critique I need.  (This is to answer your question about GPL.
Votorola's software and manuals are still MIT - never were GPL.)

Thanks too about the resume, Martin, I might take up your offer some
day.  There's a limit to how many years I can work without pay. :^)

Mike

Martin Stolze said:
> Hello Michael,
> This is quite off topic. But I can’t resist because I believe that you have
> actually come up with some awesome contributions and I wanted to ask anyway
> why you dropped the GPL license.
>
> On a bigger scale, the gist of what the pirate party is up too is finding a
> way to moderate a bigger discussion. Voting is only part of it,
> facilitating discussion, moderation, identity and trust management are
> other parts. Think of an old light bulb that only converts 2% of the energy
> intake into light. -The assumption is that we can reduce this loss by
> applying software that translates the cognitive surplus of all pirates into
> efficient decisions.
> I think you are much deeper into that then most around here. Hence my
> surprise that you think this won't matter!
>
> Anonymous voting is a snooze. //I disagree on ideological grounds.
> >
>
> As for the Aggregator, frankly - No, it doesn’t make sense to me. I believe
> you are onto something but I am not quite able to grasp it.
> Votes won’t be public, maybe opinions. If you wanted to aggregate them you
> could simply use google news and filter a bit. Certainly you will have the
> fun stuff that draws in users.
>
> But that doesn’t help us. All we need is one implementation that doesn’t
> suck and gets a little traction. Once people are hooked to the idea they
> won’t turn back. The developed world is packed with old people who have too
> much time on their hands and know everything better, think about how happy
> they will be!
>
> If you want to leap forward on a big scale you will have a better chance by
> predicting the outcome upfront. The failed intrade.com comes to mind, they
> let people put their money on elections and events and obviously given
> enough participation they were incredible accurate.
> On the other hand, rumor has it that the intelligence community is
> factoring their forecasting on aggregated opinions that can easily be
> qualified by reach. -Show me a Facebook profile and I tell you what’s on
> the ballot.
> I don’t think we have the capacity for any of this - but if that’s what you
> are aiming for you may want to leave a copy of your CV over here rentec.com
> :)
>
> Meanwhile, how about you help pushing a viable platform? It’ll make later
> aggregation even easier because you know all the details!
> Martin
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Martin and others,
> >
> > > If you hear social network you think Facebook, if you hear video
> > > playback you think “VLC” if you hear digital democracy you think
> > > ...?  let me know. ...
> >
> > I'd say vote aggregators, aka "vote mirrors".  How would Facebook work
> > if the users were anonymous and hiding behind pseudonyms?
> >
> > Answer: It wouldn't.  And digital democracy?
> >
> > Same answer.  Anonymous voting is a snooze.  That means the votes of
> > digital democracy (DD) are going to be public; at least the fun ones,
> > the ones that draw in the users.
> >
> > But that means anyone can copy the votes from different voting sites,
> > translate them, and then aggregate them to show the big picture.  The
> > aggregator would be a useful service because it's the sum of the votes
> > that matters, not the place at which they're cast.
> >
> > The upshot is that individual voting sites don't matter enough to
> > worry about.  There's no need to wait for a viable site to emerge from
> > the pack and take the lead.  Instead we just wait for the first
> > aggregator to start scraping from the pack as is, levelling all the
> > contenders in the process.  That'll be the shape of the future.  All
> > eyes will shift to the aggregators.  Add a simple "me too" voting
> > interface to an aggregator, and the voting-only sites are doomed.
> >
> > Does that make sense?  (I'm keen to start coding the first aggregator,
> > if anyone else is interested.)
> >
> > --
> > Michael Allan
> >
> > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> > http://zelea.com/

--
Ag-meinungsfindungstool mailing list
Ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.piratenpartei.de
https://service.piratenpartei.de/listinfo/ag-meinungsfindungstool

--

DISCLAIMER:
Everything I have written above is my personal experience/opinion on things, no matter what kinds of words i did use
(e.g. "always", "never", "impossible", "waste of time", ....).

Such extreme words only do indicate, that my experience/opinion on something is very strong and i currently cannot imagine that there are other possibilities until new arguments/insights/whatever open my eyes that there are alternative perspectives too :-)
Please do not feel discouraged to challenge my opinion if you have a different one.

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 

***********************************************