On 10/15/2016 03:25 PM, mray wrote:
> 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 really fundamentally disagree. The metaphor of the snowdrift dilemma
is the exact same metaphor as the one with the toll-road (with
snowdrifts cleared because of the toll funding). Whether we discuss
further angles of the metaphor or not is a question of how much time and
what context.

I have discussed this issue with hundreds of people, and you are the
only one who ever indicated even the slightest concern about the
toll-road not being completely obviously the same metaphor.

I will assert that if we present the Snowdrift dilemma as "a road
blocked by a snowdrift" and then describe "the ways we get roads cleared
generally could be with taxes, or we could have toll roads", we could
survey 1,000 people and my prediction is that zero or near-zero of them
will have *any* concern that the toll-road idea is a different metaphor.

Basically: I see you making the claim that this confuses things by
making people think about broader contexts (not just "how do we clear
the snow? i.e. fund this project?" but extended to "aren't there
existing answers without crowdmatching? How do we usually get clear
roads in reality? Taxes and toll-roads. And toll-roads as a solution to
the snowdrift dilemma is like proprietary restrictions as a solution to
funding creative works". You seem to be saying "we need to focus just on
the core dilemma at all, and then present our solution and not get
sidetracked by talking about how we compare to other solutions".

If what I just wrote captures your perspective, I disagree completely.
It is of utmost importance that we acknowledge and discuss the issues
with alternative solutions. Why isn't Kickstarter good enough? Why
aren't proprietary restrictions a good answer? How about taxes? Those
are all real-world answers to the snowdrift dilemma, and we need to
assert that they are inferior to crowdmatching.

> 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!"

No, because the one and only snowdrift dilemma is "how do we get a clear
road (and generally keep roads clear)?" We have not deviated from that
by saying that taxes or toll-roads are ways to get clear roads. Your
helicopter example suggests alternative ways around the entire issue of

Besides, even in your helicopter example, there is still only one
metaphor. So, if you want to express what is wrong with inventing
additional angles like helicopters, you'll need to explain your
objection without saying it is a new metaphor. It is not a new metaphor.
Once you set up people looking at a road blocked by a snowdrift,
anything that can exist within that same world is still the same
metaphor. You could even say, "with climate change, we'll eventually
have no snow" and it's the same metaphor.

The only thing that would make a new metaphor would be "think of a road
blocked by a snowdrift, that's the dilemma we have; also like a
situation with two prisoners deciding whether or not to confess to a
crime…" *That* is an example of creating two metaphors.

> 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.

To me, this all sounds like an attempt to create an internal metaphor in
which we are the only solution but where anyone hearing us can simply
say, "okay, but our metaphor isn't reality; in reality, it doesn't work
like that, and here's these other solutions."

I fundamentally oppose efforts to adjust the metaphor so that we are the
only possible solution or only acknowledged solution. The purpose of the
metaphor is to help people think about reality accurately.

In reality, you can fund music by just having a few wealthy patrons, by
creating access tolls and ad-sponsors, by having passionate enough
volunteers who do it without getting paid… A good metaphor will help
people think about all these things.

The key issue is: if there is a metaphor where people will find it
unable to map something they know about reality onto our metaphor, then
it is a failed metaphor. People do and will say "well, I can think of
this real-world case, what's the version of that case in your snowdrift
metaphor?" And if it's not easy for them to figure out or have an easy
answer, then our metaphor will just be rejected. People will say "oh,
your metaphor fails to account for this reality that is already true, so
I know your metaphor is stupid, and I won't use it"

The snowdrift metaphor works precisely because all real-world cases
(such as proprietary restrictions and ads) *can* be easily understood in
terms of the ONE metaphor of clearing the road.

>> 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 agree that, for brevity, we can accept focusing only on the angle of
the dilemma that goes directly to introducing crowdmatching as the
solution. We just need to have accessory things clearly available to
answer all the questions everyone immediately has like, "well, how come
Wikipedia or Open Street Map or Firefox already exist if we need
crowdmatching just to get over the core dilemma?" There's nothing
positive about avoiding answering that question.

>>> 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)

Right, but for the video, I think "relevant" is implied. Why would we be
talking about anything irrelevant?

>>> 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"

I want to leave these qualifications outside the video. They are the
immediate questions we have to clarify. The thing is, the crowdmatching
concept could work, in principle, with any sized crowd, as long as the
base match level is set appropriately and the crowd is adequately
supportive to be large enough for the project's needs.

The thing I really want to express is: "Our crowdmatching system helps
everyone coordinate in supporting CONSENSUS projects and thus avoid
problematic fragmentation". It's actually a big deal, core aspect of the
system that I find it so frustrating to see 8 teams of people working on
8 video editors where none of them is getting adequate support. One of
my motivations with Snowdrift.coop is to get people to pool their
resources so that we get at least one really good video editor etc.

The key word here is "consensus" and the key thing we avoid is
"fragmentation". I could be convinced by others that this is important
enough to get into the video, but otherwise, it can be expressed elsewhere.

So, that is the important factor rather than the emphasis on "high
demand". (After all, which of the 8 video editors is "high demand" anyway?)

>>>> 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.

Yeah, I think the emphasis on achieving consensus, helping the best
projects reach their potential instead of fragmenting our resources
might be the best way to clarify this part too. That consensus emphasis
clarifies that we want quality over quantity.

>>>> 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.

The "hyped-up" part resonates on both sides. Donors don't like getting
lots of spam, effectively, from friends and associates hassling them to
donate by this deadline etc. People are well-aware that Kickstarter
leads to lots of hype and noise…

>>>> 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.

Yup, that's why we start somewhere and then get feedback from outside
folks actually visiting the site.

>>> 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to