[MG] Social mapping in crossforum theatre

[Ed Pastore]

On Jan 28, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Thomas von der Elbe wrote:

> I understand your distinction between structural and dynamic. But  
> then there is the zoom. I feel, that our current geographical map is  
> also a structural, just very far zoomed out. The same applies to the  
> issue based, tag-cloud-like map, doesnt it?
>
> And the deeper you zoom in, the more tool-specific the structure  
> gets. Now you talk about the point, where you have zoomed in to the  
> level of a single poll, right? Here we want to somehow show as much  
> as possible from all the tools who agreed on having relevant data to  
> this poll. (This agreement "we all are working/voting on the same  
> subject" is imo already somehow tricky.)
>
> But if they agree, what do they all have in common? Please correct me!
>
> - They all have proposals and votes for it.
> - Some will have their votes structured in delegation trees, others  
> not.
> - Some of the delegetions will be from within this poll, some will  
> be across several polls (e.g. all environmental polls).
> - Some will have the proposals structured in parents and children,  
> e.g. Aktiv Demokrati
> - Some tools, e.g. Vilfredo, will have different phases like  
> drafting, voting, ...
>
> I feel all of that could be displayed in a forest of trees  
> (delegation-tools) and bushes (non-delegation-tools).

Couldn't the visualization itself take the form of a plug-in  
architecture where people can add-in/swap-out new ways of viewing the  
theater to match their preferences? In other words, along the lines of  
a skin on a website. Look at the preferences dialog in Wikipedia as a  
model... two different people can have radically different experiences  
of the same underlying content; not just in terms of appearance, but  
also to some extent in terms of behavior.



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