Not quite clear on a couple of your questions - so digging... On 19 August 2010 19:17, Michael Allan <<a href="mailto:mike@zelea.com">mike@zelea.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> 2. Generalize it to support multiple a) simultaneous productions (not only crossforum ranging), b) companies of actors (not only ranger companies) and c) various criteria of interaction (not only discussion). Is this going in the right direction? If so, (c) is challenging to imagine. What kinds of interaction? Does anyone have a concrete example? </blockquote> I am thinking that you mean you would like examples of interaction which were not directly and simply reducible to something akin to discussions based on debates about text based propositions? In many ways what I picture as a "Liquid Unconference" is simply a discussion about text based propositions, however this is the end result, the product, not the interface. To try to suggest proposals that may go some way to answering this question, I've sketched out a number of forms / aspects that I think these real space events / performative interfaces can take: <ol><li>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.</li> <li>A Game Example</li><li>An Intimate Example</li><li>A Practical Example </li></ol> Subtlety - hell it's not really that different! Unconferences - are simply a series of small face to face discussions between peers. They are therefore not essentially different from text based discussions online. No big difference there. There is however a clear aim to remove some of the formality, the bureaucracy, out of the real space meeting - and to take a step or two closer to that of a creative performance, in order to allow a richer initial set of ideas to be placed on the table, while allowing at the same time a slower time, and a richer set of tools (delegated decisions) to enhance the quality of the decisions being made. Interestingly I see in Augusto Boal's Wikipedia entry - it has been updated to draw parallels between crowdsourcing and forum Theatre - Unconferences are in this same spirit - that of breaking down the idea of audience and performer/speaker, producer and customer - and in creating a new hybrid - in Boal's terminology the SpectActor. The difference is subtle but important. It is important because thinking this way defends the presentation against powerful attacks, it communicates better, and it is too easy for developers to think about the technical, philosophical, and text based aspects - expecting to tack on a suitable front end when the back-end is ready. It is my belief that the most important work is on the front end, and that this work, working with active debating communities), should be driving the development, and will have deep implications for the backend. A Game Example Lets start somewhere radically different. An interface that no one would confuse with traditional political debate. Games are good for this as they allow us to create playful spaces for "audiences" which encourage them to step outside of preconceived ideas of social convention and politics. They also allow us to embed software into the decisions without it seeming artificial or strange. A core part of the show I am working on involves the use and abuse of games. It is possible (and legal) to create a game out of existing computer games, in which progress that is the decisions made are based on the interaction of groups of people in game. Fights? Yes partly. But also we can conceive of building into "the code" LD as part of the game logic - there can be LD based ways of awarding resources to combatants, there can be in game elections. To picture this concretely we can envisage live streaming of in-game footage into events. That is this live footage can be projected into a real space event, with participants taking part online. We can have debates, with game characters featured presenting their cases (using video), we can have jury panels adjudicating on decisions, we can script the games to allow players to use LD to vote, and of course we can have fun with battles in which teams compete to battle for what they believe. This is what we call Gladiatorial Democracy, and all of this is possible using existing high quality visualisations (games), with people (SpectActors) taking part and a minimal of new software development. An Intimate Example We can picture an event in which hundreds of groups take part from home, in intimate settings. Perhaps over food. They can simply organise an event, based on a dinner party, but not billed as such. In which short videos are shown, and then debated over food. This can be seen as an intimate version of an Unconference in which people split up into small groups to have round table discussions. The difference is that you can do it at home. You can produce your own short video (position), or take elements from Documentaries or ideas presented at TED talks, and invite friends around. Initial responses can be captured as questions or comments spoken to (web) camera, and added to the discussion online. LD can be used by everyone in their own time to form positions on the range of topics and people presenting at the event. I think it is clear to see how this can act as a stimulus to a follow up LD debate online. The initial "interface: however is "food", and humorous, creative talks at a friends house, and the medium directly supports the organisation and presentation of these in a way in which it would not be possible easily to do yourself. Again a new form of political debate is encouraged / facilitated, and LD is used to bring these fragments together in a malleable, remixable, creative fashion. A Practical Example Universities often facilitate speakers, talks, debates, and also bands, music, and comedians. It is not hard to imagine a touring event which Student Unions, can put on, which mixes some of these elements together on the theme of voting reform. I would see taking some interesting and controversial issues, showing short film clips, using LD, and showing how LD works along side the general theme, and getting students to sign up, and help build the project. Again it should be possible for someone to "download" the show toolkit, so they could put on their own event, mix in local acts, bands, comedians - just as it would be possible for a dedicated team to have a show, that is booked for a fee, and tours a group of Universities. I know of a couple of projects that do pretty much this already in the UK, and one way of taking this forwards on a practical level is to team up with them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Votorola" group. To post to this group, send an email to votorola@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to votorola+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votorola?hl=en-GB.