Mini-beta and redesign of Crossforum Theatre

[David Bovill]

Just dropping in here - as this subject is close to my heart. I'm working
away busily but more on rhetoric - human centred translations and pilots
than pure theory - for instance http://www.parliamentofthings.net - so give
me some latitude if I am not up on  the subtleties of your discussion :)

On 19 April 2012 11:55, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:

>
> 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. :-)
>

Can you elaborate on this?


>  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.


This is I think how I see it. I see many use cases for such groups, and
would like to see a way in which they can form and dissolve in a way which
is not too traumatic. Inside the group there would be an internal vote, and
indeed they would be able to adopt different ways of organising this - they
could nest an LD system within the group node or adopt another simpler
voting system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/attachments/20120419/9c22061c/attachment.html>