On 15.10.2016 18:12, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 04:04 AM, mray wrote:
>> On 15.10.2016 04:35, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> With a road blocked by a snowdrift, everyone wants it cleared, but
>>> nobody wants to do it all themselves. Of course, nothing gets done if
>>> each of us waits for others to do the work.
>>> That's an example of the PUBLIC GOODS PROBLEM where we fail to cooperate
>>> enough to support resources that benefit everyone.
>> Not convinced of that last sentence. The public goods problem exist, but
>> so do public goods. Clearly this does not match the snowdrift problem
>> you refere to in the sentence before. It covers the road and does not
>> allow passage *at all*. We *do* have public goods of the kind we want to
>> support, though. To make the snowdrift analogy work there needs to be a
>> problem that stands for the pile of snow: an _unsolved_ problem.
> I can tweak those words, but we have to assert that there *do* exist
> un-shoveled piles of snow, effectively. We have to say that the problem
> remains unsolved. The truth, that the original text covered, is that
> there are two solutions already: taxes and toll-roads, and so
> acknowledging that while rejecting those as inadequate or incomplete
> solutions is necessary for complete clarity.

My point is that using a metaphor means accepting its boundaries.
We can't only lean on the snowdrift dilemma as long as it fits, only to
quickly borrow from an entirely new, fabricated metaphor that has
NOTHING to do with it but fits our need.

I see what each part is supposed to do here, and why it matters. I have
an issue with us not being able to stick to ONE metaphor. It seems like
we owe it to our name that we can get along with only the snowdrift
dilemma. The "extension" of cameras, tolls and ads kind of "fits"
thematically but is IN FACT outside of the realm of what is known as the
snowdrift dilemma.

It is like saying: "....we could all work together or – fly over the
snowdrift with our private helicopters, but patrol is too expensive and
little timmy lost the helicopter keys!"

Our extension weakens the impact strongly, too. It makes everything more
complex and ambiguous.

The one snowdrift dilemma has to be able to map all outcomes with its
setting. Like: "We want *certain* free stuff to be *properly* funded by
*many* people in a volunatary manner.

THIS is way closer to merging everything in one dilemma where all other
known projects would fail, but not us.

> If we accept brevity, then it's just beyond the video to say "sure, it's
> solved in some cases, but this dilemma describes the challenge and why
> it *often* goes unsolved".

I think brevity can be applied by exactly stating what we see as the
problem, and NOT telling what it is not.

> Let me clarify: the statement I am making is that the problem describes
> why it is hard to get people to cooperate and implies that it MAY and
> DOES happen that *often* we do fail to get there. I'm not trying to
> imply that it *always* happens that way. The Snowdrift Dilemma and
> Public Goods Problem in general does not say that cooperation is
> impossible, it just explains why we OFTEN fail.

I'm not sure I understand what you want to clarify. You seem to
underline that the snowdrift-dilemma only makes a general assumption
about human behaviour that can't be mapped to our case 1:1. And in order
to map correctly we have to explain lots of things before we draw the
right picture in peoples minds.

My suggestion would be to even start out – right from the beginning –
with a framed version of the snowdrift dilemma that fits our needs. So
we don't have to introduce the "vanilla flavour" first, to then define
ourselves through the differences to that "vanilla flavour".

>> I think the unsolved problem is to organize financial project support in
>> *direct relation* to the scope of public relevance. – Which is where we
>> can often spot a shocking discrepancy: Relevance != $upport
>> Our goal is to leverage exactly and only at this point.
> Yes, the nuanced truth is that it's a continuum from no support to full
> potential, and we rarely are at either extreme. But that's too nuanced
> for the video, unless we take the time to express this further (like
> talking of some people who love shoveling snow).

I can see how talking about "releveant projects" vs. "projects" can make
that difference already. As you said it does not have to transport all
nuances. It is enough if we somehow limit participation instead of
underlining our goal to be open for everything (which would be the
expected default I guess)

>> We need to somehow say that being a public good that benefits everyone
>> isn't good enough for us. Sweeping demand of a project isn't just
>> desired, to some degree it is the only thing we truly care about.
>> Because everything else can stick with the status quo and have the same
>> results as what we can offer them in our system (few demand = few
>> donations).
> This video is simply not going to cover the issue that Snowdrift.coop is
> best fit to the projects that have on-going needs and reach more than a
> very small niche audience. Those things will have to live elsewhere or
> be in later videos or pages or whatever. This is the video describing
> the core concept, not getting into nuances about which projects are the
> best-fit for our solution.

You are right, still. No nuances but maybe something like;
"Free Projects with high demand" instead of "Projects that are free to
share and remix"

>>> Public goods can also be things like music, software, movies, news,
>>> research…  We'd all love to get these things for free with no
>>> limitations. But then how could we fund their development in the first
>>> place?
>> I think at this point we need to add this caveat:
>>  "... But then how could we fund their development in the first place?
>> And expect really professional quality and dedication"
> That's implied well-enough. If people think, "musicians and movie-makers
> can just get by on super tiny budgets", we're already dealing with a
> different sort of conversation. Most people don't actually think that a
> movie we'd care about or journalism we want can manage with tiny
> budgets. As far as we're concerned, the things we'd all wish to freely
> share are quality things, not shitty ones.

Oh, I was more afraid of people thinking more along the lines that we
may want to have MORE quantity of the free material that we have around
today. I would not take it for granted that people imply what we
envision: Essentially creating new kick-ass Jobs – not only helping to
boost the donate pages a bit.

>>> At Snowdrift.coop, we've created a new crowdmatching system to fund
>>> these types of projects while keeping them as free and open public goods.
>> I like that.
>>> When supporting projects here, you don't risk volunteering alone, and
>>> there's no hyped-up, all-or-nothing, one-time campaigns. You just make a
>>> pledge that says, "l'll chip in a little more for each person who joins
>>> me!" And because we calculate our crowdmatching donations monthly, our
>>> system combines mutual assurance with sustainable funding and
>>> accountability.
>> I think "hyped-up" is a really alien accusation that smells of prejudice
>> towards our best known "competitor". Lets not start mudslinging ;)
> Is there a different wording we can use to express the issue? "Costly"
> maybe or "risky"? I like "hyped-up" here, although I'll admit that
> there's the argument that the forcing of people to do promotion can be a
> good thing.

Leaving possible benefits aside for a moment – I think the necessary
amount of resources spent on campaigns are only an obvious issue for
creators, less so for supporters. If it does not resonate , lets not use
it as an argument either way.

>>> Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for
>>> everyone!
>> All inn all this sounds good to me. If I would (but I don't want to) add
>> anything it would be to mention our Limit handling to take away fear of
>> explosion once people grasp that in fact we let them "steal money out of
>> each others pockets" ;)
> I agree that the budget thing is important, but that's where the moment
> people watch the video we need to tell them that the very next step is
> to read the how-it-works page where we emphasize budget limits.

You're right. We totally need to address this later.
There seem to be so many ways to do all of this right, feels like we're
going to have to iterate on this for the next 20 years.

>> If at any time you re-record this try to speak a *little bit* slower
>> than your first take. The images can't keep up with hasty speech.
> Slower, got it, okay.

Slower and clear breaks between treating different ideas/topics - it is
easier to better sync with more wiggle room.
Design mailing list

Reply via email to