Simple stuff - vocab and familiarity

JAnne Davies judithdaviestripp at
Sat Aug 21 19:48:13 EDT 2010

Furthermore,as much as the "canned" is worthy to be despised as in, history demonstrates that the the
majority of people, at least up until now, can easily be persuaded to
do what the elites want them to do because the elites have the "power"
to persuade. True, the persuasion may involve the threat of military
force and or some other form of fear mongering, nevertheless, "canned
democracy" has had an appeal for centuries and finds currency within
state run democracies even now. For example,
"A potent threat to freedom is posed by the rise of democracy's
"doubles"—regimes that claim to be democratic and may look like
democracies, but which rule like autocracies. Liberal democracy today
is challenged on one side by Hugo Rafael Chávez revolutionary
Venezuela and on the other by Vladimir Putin's anti revolutionary
Russia. The rise of Chávez's "direct democracy" and Russia's "directed
democracy" poses a clear challenge to the political pluralism that is
central to liberal democracy."

Of course Votorola has nothing to do with any of this except insofar
as it is able to promote authentic dialogue - a pluralism of many
voices. Ideally votorola is intended to provide the technical means
for democratic processes to occur from the ground up; it be
subversive, occur on the ground and will be  grass roots.

A question remains: who are the people on the "ground"? Are WE the
"grassroots people on the ground" sufficiently known and understood
such that Votorola will be designed to appeal to "WE DUMMIES"? In the
end will WE want to interface with Votorola' e-democracy as "THE
MEANS" to authentic participatory democracy?

On Aug 21, 5:29 pm, Anne Moreland <judithdaviestr... at> wrote:
> I am in agreement:" In a revolution, as in a novel, the most difficult part
> to invent is the end."
>  Alexis de Tocqueville<>
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rol... at> wrote:
> > I don't want to derail any furthering going on.
> > I would like to add in though that my recent experience tells me that I
> > simply do not have enough of a command of the vocabulary of the "real
> > democracy" process to be much help in educating others.  I may be usefully
> > underselling myself but I also feel that "involving" others in a process
> > means we, I, provide others with a guide to the tools and vocabulary I'm
> > using and perhaps even make some, or a whole lot, of room for them to
> > customize the language so they are comfortable.
> > I want to give a big heartfelt +1 to any scenario that aids small groups in
> > grabbing hold of real democracy locally, in person, so that the online
> > process makes sense.
> > Think about alcoholics anonymous.  The first meeting is weird and you take
> > it slow, watch, maybe share a bit.  Before you know it a stranger is calling
> > you because you are a sponsor listed on a website.
> > Lots of learning is needed for this "natural" mode to feel natural again.
> >  Small group "real democracy games" could go a long way in that effort.
> > I think one of the tricks here is for us to make something ideal,
> > democracy, possible, and real, for the first time.. Ever?  Well, I think you
> > knpw what I mean.  Not just make it real, but share the opportunity for
> > others to go throigh the process of inventing it for themselves, from
> > scratch, whenever they need to.
> > I'm thinking of the quote "not one is free until all are free."  we could
> > do to keep this in mind.  The meekest amongst us still have the tools and
> > skills to participate.  In addition each has access to a democraric
> > "artiste", those who can help them turn their work into art.
> > I was in a meeting today and could feel the wish welling up in me that the
> > group could continue to do business online and i also know that while they
> > might discuss online, this is not the same as democracy.  The bridge for
> > this group, though, will more than likely be made in person before being
> > taken online.
> > Alex
> > On Aug 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, David Bovill <da... at>
> > wrote:
> > On 21 August 2010 01:44, Michael Allan < <m... at>m... at>wrote:
> >> I have a rough plan for the theatre staging:
> >>  <>
> >>
> > Think we need to have a Skype caht about this, as i've been out of the loop
> > with previous conversations.
> > This seems to be an interface sketch fro an app which would allow you to
> > take part in LD events from home / on the internet? If so - that's the sort
> > of app that I've often worked on, and got various btis and peices we can
> > play with, experiment, brain storm over, but I don't quite see yet the
> > connection between the sketch and the actual events / that is the content of
> > the events yet.
> > There are simple ways, and existing interfaces we may be able to use for
> > this purpose, I think what we need to do is clearly define the content, then
> > use this to see what we can use, or build, in order to create an LD
> > facilitated set of live debates (unconferences).
> > Why "live real-space events"? Because taking part in the debate for
> > everyone concerned is effort, and we need the show to be good enough,
> > dramatic enough, for it to be something people want to come again to. This
> > is easiest to achieve by featuring / covering talks at a real space event,
> > which gives a focus to the participation. From that point we can scale the
> > adhoc participation from individuals taking part through an single web based
> > GUI.
> > David Bovill wrote:
> >> > ... What we need to do is put a good team together that are
> >> > committed, have complementary skills that cover these different
> >> > bases.
> >> From my point of view, the steps to team building are:
> >>  1) Code an all-round functional alpha. (done)
> >>  2) Add an attractive entry window.
> >>  3) Get a few quality users and work closely with them.
> >>  4) Pull in a second skilled developer.
> >> I guess you see unconferences as an entry window (2).  The advantage
> >> is that it has elements of (4) in it.  You get both users *and*
> >> developers at once, at least for a day or two.  The advantage of my
> >> approach is that it scales more easily and rapidly in terms of user
> >> participation.
> > Possibly. But only if a few assumptions are fulfilled:
> >    1. The user experience (UX) of the interface, and the participation is
> >    sufficiently good for them to want to come back for more. If you think of
> >    the software as a web game - then to develop the user experience to this
> >    level can take a huge amount of work, and no one will play it until the UX
> >    is good enough - only then will it scale.
> >    2. Solo participation via the web is compelling enough - to offset the
> >    initial teething / bootstrapping problems.
> >    3. We will be able to attract the same quality and quantity of
> >    speakers, artists and film makers to an online event, in alpha software as
> >    we will in a live real space event.
> > It is my view that the content, and idea is more attractive than the
> > software at this stage. That yes we need to put both together (we need the
> > LD game logic), but we are better using real-space and video for the
> > interface, than on relying simply on an online GUI in the early stages.
> > The APIs are pretty much ready for the first developer who needs them.
> >>  Some improvements could be made up front.  Others would probably wait
> >> till I could dialogue with that first developer.
> >> >    2. Use the RoadShow. Theatre requires good visuals, it attracts
> >> people
> >> >    who like to make good visuals. In the time scale between no and the
> >> actual
> >> >    roadshow we will be able to work with a team to produce those visuals
> >> >    together. Not DIY, not ourselves, but focus on the team creation,
> >> associated
> >> >    with the event.
> >> By RoadShow, you mean unconference?
> > Yes - if that is the format chosen.
> > So should we wait for one of these events to be organized before we
> >> start developing a marquee user interface (like crossforum theatre)?
> >> Or should we start on that now, even if that means starting alone?
> > Bit of both. We need the "marquee user interface" for the launch event. And
> > we need to invite people, fix the dates and venue, get the content sorted,
> > organise people (SpectActors) that are ready to implement the various LD
> > roles in the event (online and in real space). Again, to maximise everyones
> > sense of energy and promote teamwork these things should be run in parallel,
> > not wait for software to be finished first.
> >> David Bovill wrote (in the other thread):
> >> > To try to suggest proposals that may go some way to answering this
> >> > question [what kinds of interaction?], I've sketched out a number of
> >> > forms / aspects that I think these real space events / performative
> >> > interfaces can take:
> >> >    1. Subtlety - hell it's not really that different! We can move
> >> smoothly
> >> >    from a traditional Unconference to more imaginative performances as
> >> >    resources, the audience and the need arises.
> >> >    2. A Game Example
> >> >    3. An Intimate Example
> >> >    4. A Practical Example
> >> I realize now that we probably don't have to code support for specific
> >> types of interaction up front.  They're mostly a matter of production
> >> content (scripted or just thematic).
> >> I don't really know if you'd want (or need) to produce anything
> >> specifically for crossforum theatre, in support of unconferences etc.
> > Yes - but I see this as derivative of the actual events, it's a spin-off
> > product rather than something that drives the events.
> >> In addition, you might produce an overview of all those unconferences,
> >> in various stages of happening, maybe as a running summary.  (Hear
> >> what people are saying, see where they are located in democracy-space,
> >> and so forth.)
> > Yes
> > I read through your other examples, but no other production ideas came
> >> to mind.
> > What do you mean by a "production idea" - I think of production in the
> > theatre sense here - they are clearly different productions?
> >> The frame sequencer doesn't actually give me lots of
> >> creative ideas for other productions.  )Maybe we can find a better
> >> medium, later.)  But it at least suffices for the conversation-based
> >> productions, which I think are the most important.  (The most
> >> important of all might be one that allowed you to follow the doings of
> >> your friends, family and other peers in democracy space.)
> > I'm not attracted / maybe don't fully get to the idea of a "Frame
> > Sequencer" - I want to be able to explore, navigate, debates and arguments
> > that support or contradict each other - I want to see various ways in which
> > the parts can be remixed, and be seen as part of a whole cohesive, debate,
> > performance, play, event.

More information about the Votorola mailing list