What I wrote here is a part of a bigger system that I described in my previous post. I do believe that what you’re raising here is addressed to a certain degree, but I’m struggling a bit with seeing the culprits, because I don’t get much feedback about it. So thanks for this comment, that gives me some concrete direction where & how I could potentially improve it.
Could you specify a bit more though what exactly you think the stepping stones to uptake of this system might be?
As I understand it you’re raising two points in your comment:
- How to get consensus for issues, so that as many participants as possible are satisfied with the outcome
- How to drive adoption so that the system will actually be used and won’t stay a niche product (and it will need to be used by many, otherwise it won’t have a driving effect)
To solve the first issue about getting consensus I imagine a 3-step approach. First: Deliberation/Argument mapping. Every issue has a discussion and/or argument mapping attached to it, which is one of the core elements. The way how this discussion could work will surely evolve over time, but initially something like kialo.com might be a good approach (and there are many others in the making; project gruff, arguman, debatemap.live, …). The idea is to have a good overview over what’s going to be affected, and ideas how each individual (negative) effect could be avoided.
Second: Proposing solution (bundles?). It will be common to start with a proposal, but there have to be multiple versions that get iteratively improved. With more mapped arguments the concerns are more clear and it will be possible to get better solution proposals. Each solution could be regarded as a bundle of sub-solutions that are enacted together.
Third: Voting. People can vote on arguments in the map, on comments, or on solution (bundles). Only if (and only as long as) a solution bundle meets a specified criteria (e.g. no more than 10% against, at least 1000 votes cast, …) the incentive will be payed out. Otherwise, a better solution or solution bundle has to be found.
There could be a system of automatic vote transferal (that can be adjusted by the user?), so that users don’t always have to vote again but that their vote gets automatically transferred to new proposals (again if certain criteria are met, e.g. 90% of sub-proposals are the same, meaning didn’t significantly change, …) until they manually change their vote.
(I realize that I didn’t go into that much detail in my previous post, maybe I’ll make a new out of this…)
I won’t go into much about adoption for now, let it be enough to say that I hope that this system will be attractive enough for a reasonable amount of users that they’ll give the incentives a bit of a value, which in turn will attract more users and further increases the value.
Maybe I’ll also write more about that in another full post :-)
Where do you think I should expand on the most?
As always: discussion/thoughts/criticism/etc are more than welcome, thank you!
