Mini-beta and redesign of Crossforum Theatre

[Michael Allan]

Thomas von der Elbe said:
> Automatically create a position if someone votes ... yes! ... but at
> what point would the new user be asked to vote? If he just visits a
> draft?

When he clicks on a "My draft" link.  If there's no draft, he has the
option of creating one.  If it's created as a copy of another draft,
then he'll *also* have the option of voting for the drafter.  (Again,
this is for sake of the collaborative drafting tools, which currently
work best in co-voter groups.)

> > Maybe mini votespace matters more than full votespace?  Active
> > users won't often be visiting a dedicated votespace view (why
> > would they?)
> 
> For myself it is clear, that I want to have an overview, where I can
> see where I am in the whole power-structure of the whole poll. Where
> my candidates candidate is etc.

Yes, so do I.

> Ofc it would be perfect to have the whole votespace in a track or so
> on top of every other window. But thats not possible, I guess. So a
> Mini-votespace will have to do there.

You are assuming case (i).  But there's an alternative:

> > ... If we removed the text mnemonics (Ge. Ol. etc) then two
> > interesting possibilities emerge: we could either (i) squeeze mini
> > votespace into a thin stage track, so it appears in all staged
> > views; or (ii) squeeze more of votespace into it, so it becomes
> > more attractive and interesting to play with.

So we get a fuller version of mini-votespace in the drafts and
difference bridge than currently.  I think this is the direction to
go, because it takes us where the users are.
 
> Especially when one casts or shifts his vote (which I expect to
> happen very often in the beginning of a poll) the big picture is
> useful. So to have the full votespace connected to the
> voting-facility (like it is now) is the best imo.

Yes, there will always be at least one dedicated votespace view,
probably several.  But will they get much traffic from users?  What's
do there?  You can navigate around, but it's tedious having to go to a
separarte page in order to navigate.  So although I think we need a
dedicated votespace view, it's only for special purposes.

> > I don't understand what you mean by 20 voters "all with the same
> > position".  Even a single circle (candidate and voters) has
> > positions that diverge somewhat.  Any 20 positions that deserved
> > center place in a larger poll would likely diverge even more.
> 
> With vote-circle I meant: I vote for you, you vote for C, C votes for me.
> And in the old vote-space the way this circle shows up is quite 
> irritating. The only thing I can think of, would be to show all three of 
> us as end-candidates (with the same amount of votes ofc) but somehow 
> graphically connected, so the circular vote becomes clear.

You mean vote cycles!
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#cycle
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#fn-16

The selection mechanism gets confused by cycles.  We can probably fix
it to behave less crazily. :-)  Then we could decorate the cycle
somehow, like you say.  (but see below, there's maybe a better way)

> ... Now, with a real poll in mind, this case (circular vote) becomes
> my favorite one. It bridges the two extremes: 1. every voter has his
> own position (Votorolas design) and 2. a position belongs to all its
> voters and can therefore never be changed again (most other designs
> out there).
> 
> The second design is ofc unbearably limited, but its advantage is:
> the feeling is clearly, that one is voting for a position instead of
> voting for a person. Many people don't like voting for a person. I
> heard that quite often in conversations. Their pull to e-democracy
> comes from there: they look foreward to not need to vote for people
> anymore, but for people-less, pure, clean positions. And pyramide
> with one person at the top reminds them of dictators.
> 
> Votorolas design allows for vote-circles, which allows you to vote
> for a group of people. Imo this is perfect!

There are problems with a cycle:

  a) Only end-candidates can cycle.  If folks up in the tree form a
     cycle, they drop to the ground like ripe fruit. :-)

  b) Cycles are hard to maintain.  If one person (G) shifts his vote,
     then the whole cycle is broken.  Someone else has to correct it
     (F to H).

  c) Cycles are likely to be poorly visualized (as you note) because
     we don't use them much.


   (V)---(C)                   (0)---(7)
       /     \   (W)               /     \   (0)
     (H)     (D) /               (7)     (7) /        |
      |       | /                 |       | /         | vote flow
     (G)     (E)                 (7)     (7)          V
       \     /                     \     /
         (F)                         (7)


A possible solution is to give the group an email address (P), then
vote for the group:


   (V)     (W)                  (0)     (0)
    |       |                    |       |              
    |       |                    |       |              
   (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)      (1) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) 
     \   \  |  /   /   /          \   \  |  /   /   /   
      \   \ | /   /   /            \   \ | /   /   /    
       \   \|/   /   /              \   \|/   /   /     
        +-+ | +-+---+                +-+ | +-+---+      
           \|/                          \|/             
           (P)                          (8) 


This is almost the same, but with none of the disadvantages.  All we'd
need is a small change in the count engine to allow non-eligible
voters (like P) to carry votes.  (Currently they can only receive
votes, but cannot cast or carry.)  Then the whole group could "vote"
for someone else, or for another group.  That means it could exist
higher up in the tree.

-- 
Michael Allan

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