On 10/17/2016 08:12 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> While I really appreciate the insights and perspective from the story
> approach Michael presented, it feels far too contrived to me. I'd like
> to see if we can capture some feel of the story-style narrative without
> pushing the limits too hard.
> The problem I have with the story is that anything a little too
> far-fetched is hard to accept. People don't have the experience of
> living in a town that has no tax-funded public services. Perhaps if the
> story were described as a rural road out of town where there's no mayor
> or such, then it's just the individuals in the houses in the
> neighborhood dealing with the challenge of cooperation without an
> existing government structure for support.

True, but doesn't the same apply to the whole snowdrift / tolls & ads
idea in our cartoon illustrations? 

I'm leaning toward the view that Bryan brought up in the meeting
yesterday (before you joined, Aaron) that we may be better off not
trying to use any reference to snowdrifts and instead changing our name
to crowdmatch.coop.  I think trying to start with a snowdrift makes it
much harder than it otherwise would be to create a clear quick and
engaging introductory explanation.

> At any rate, the big issue is that Robert (alone among everyone in this
> regard, I think) feels that (A) we need to be able to talk to people
> about "solving the snowdrift dilemma" and the idea that e.g. Patreon
> doesn't "solve the snowdrift dilemma" etc.  so have a core thing we get
> people to understand as "the snowdrift dilemma" which itself is the core
> cooperation dilemma, and so (B) any reference to toll-roads etc.
> shouldn't be a factor that people come to associate with "the snowdrift
> dilemma" because it brings up different dilemmas.
> I still do not agree with Robert's view, but I do think there's an
> important question about where the toll-road issue comes in when
> explaining things. So, I'm going to start a new thread on the discussion
> list about this question.
> One last point about Michael's story: I don't like the wordings that say
> "The same way it was hard for the townspeople to cooperate to clear the
> snowdrift, it's hard for people to cooperate to fund creation of 'public
> goods' that benefit us all." That and related wordings really push the
> idea that it's just a metaphor. I would rather say "the same dilemma
> applies to other public goods…" because that expresses that the
> snowdrift dilemma is an example, not just a metaphor.
> If we say "the snowdrift dilemma is an example of a public goods
> problem" that's just true completely and not a metaphor. When we say
> "software funding faces the snowdrift dilemma", it becomes a metaphor.
> Anyway, if we *directly* apply crowdmatching to the snowdrift problem,
> it's not a matching of volunteer time (although that's possible, it's
> not what we're doing). Instead, it's just crowdmatched funding to pay
> for the snow-plow.
> The accurate version of the story accepting a mayor and government is
> either (A) "so we passed a new tax to fund snow-clearing in the future"
> (that's it) or (B) "we tried to pass a new tax, but the people were
> opposed to new taxes, so came up with the best voluntary alternative: we
> set up a crowdmatching pledge where each of us agreed to pay a little
> bit times the number of donors to our snow-clearing fund, and thus we
> built up an adequate fund and were able to hire a snow-plow on our own
> terms, which meant no toll gates and billboards!"
> Anyway, will post to discuss list my bigger thought.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to