# Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video

```
On 16.10.2016 02:19, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> 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
> transportation.```
```
Our dilemma is fixed on a very specific setting and has a defined amount
of possible outcomes. A dilemma is nothing but a matrix of outcomes. The
toll-roads are not part of any such matrix. That makes them by
definition not part of our *Dilemma* even if we stick them inside our
*Metaphor*.

Dilemma != Metaphor

I agree that you can invent a dilemma where toll-roads are part of a
matrix - but that clearly isn't ours. "How do we get a clear road (and
generally keep roads clear)?" is a question, not a dilemma. It may end
up in one, but to do so you'd have to narrow down its outcomes. You'd
have many possible answers to choose from:
- shovel away the snow
- heat up roads so they don't get covered by snow
- control weather so it does not snow that much
- build a roof over the roads
- ...
- ...you get the picture

You could only end up with a dilemma if you chose one path and map all
its possible outcomes to a matrix.

So, the toll-road is *disguised* as a new solution out of our dilemma,
when in fact it is not. It is ONLY part of a separate decision that may
lead to the dilemma. That decision had multiple outcomes that are not
mapped in any matrix/dilemma:
1. shovel snow (face the dilemma)
2. pay tolls
3. do both (support CC and use DRM)
4. climb over the snowdrift and walk (use only CC)
5. ...
6. ...

The word "dilemma" unfortunately is easily used for the whole Metaphor.
This makes it harder to understand that billboards, cameras and
toll-roads are no alternative "way out" of the dilemma. They are only a
metaphor for why you may agree to accept the challange to deal with a
dilemma.

I see a solution to all this by first pointing out that we agree that
free/sharable goods are something we all appreciate; Neither mentioning
"dilemma" in THAT context, nor stuffing it into the same metaphor as our
dilemma. Just setting a premise. Keeping it "snow free" so to speak.
After that we can go FULL DILEMMA and care about shovels and snow!

...
>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>

Because all free work is relevant to most of us, as a concept, even the
"non-relevant" work.

```

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

```_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
```