[MG] Votespace social map - layout stability

[Michael Allan]

Thomas wrote:
> ... Are we on the right track? The fixed positions have their
> advantages, but the sorting of voters in regard of their votes is
> also something really valueable. This was possible in the old
> tree-structure. If we would implement the old structure into the
> crossforum, would the sorting then be possible? If yes, do the
> advantages of the new design outwage this one disadvantage?

Yes, I think so.  If we do an HTML layout (mostly text) instead of SVG
(graphical), then we can do rank ordering.  The HTML layout engine can
handle it.  But no, I don't think rank ordering would necessarily be
an advantage.  I agree with Alexander:

Alexander Praetorius wrote:
> I think multiple possible views are better than a single do-it-all
> view.  There should be view's for different purposes...  ...maybe a
> "fractal landscape view" for overview and "node-to-node-view" for
> exploration.  ...maybe several options for customization of views
> (size of nodes show amount of voters, colors of nodes show topic
> domain, thickness of edges show amount of supporters?, and so on...)
> ...maybe predefined sets of view-option for all different views ???

Here's our current view, which hardly shows rank (per se) at all:
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/crossforum/vote/_/3.xht

Here's the view Thomas mentioned, which gives emphasis to rank:
http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/Votespace?u=Test-af-ZeleaCom&p=G!p!sandbox

Here's another view with even more emphasis on rank, to the exclusion
of almost everything else:
http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/Rank?u=Test-af-ZeleaCom&p=G!p!sandbox

> The main question in mind should be the different user roles and
> what the user might want to do with the view. What is the user
> interested in when he visits the site. A journalist or a politician
> might have different needs than an average voter or a technician or
> whatever reasons a visitor of crossforum theater has :)

Rank would matter if you needed to think like an executive, for
example - one who must execute decisions.  Then you might want to see
the consensus in light of decision rules.  Decision rules vary, but
tend to be sensitive to differences of rank.  (I look forward to
coding a decision-oriented view for Metagov, because it's definitely
needed.)

On the other hand, a newcomer stumbling on a social circle will
probably be uninterested in details of rank.  Folks don't ordinarily
gather in together wearing the insignia of rank, and getting in a huff
if someone occupies the wrong chair.  Aristocrats used do that, at
least on formal occaisions.  Military officers still do it.  But it
doesn't mesh with current, civil society.

We could argue that parity is more important than rank.  Day-to-day
consensus making is based on free discussion among peers.  Or we could
argue that it's best to have fewer votes, because it puts you in
closer touch with ordinary folk who have to obey the law, or whatever
you're drafting.  If the essense of democracy is to recognize no other
basis for the legitimate exercise of power than the willing assent of
those who are ruled by it, then the essential view will be one that
shows people in *actual* communication at the periphery of a *formal*
consensus.  Views like that are not currently available from other
sources.  Other sources focus on formalities.  The formalities are
artificial and untrue, so far as we know.  Democracy is cast in doubt.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/



Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org