On 11/24/2016 01:52 AM, mray wrote: > > Thank you Aaron! > I like the script. > > >> The snowdrift dilemma asks: who will clear the public road when we all >> get the results whether or not we help? > > * "get the results" sounds very neutral. "benefit from it" would a > positive connotation to what we are about. >
Agreed > >> The same issue applies to funding public goods such as music, software, >> movies, news, research, and so on… > > * music only *can* be an example. I think we need to say that free > music, free software... are examples of public goods. > Right, that was in the longer scripts, but I figured out that I can use a certain inflection in the audio to imply this somewhat. It's not perfect, but thought about the middle ground of "public goods which can include…" I want to not take any time to clarify that roads, music, software MAY be public goods but not necessarily. We just don't have time to clarify any of that. Here's my proposal now: "This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, news, research, and so on…" > >> So, Snowdrift.coop helps coordinate everyone with our new crowdmatching >> system! > > * "So" is a place-filler and could be omitted. > Nope, it's too jarring without a transition. It could be "But we have a solution…" or "To address this," or that sort of thing, and "So," is the shortest possible of that. There must be some transition from "problem!" to "solution!" that indicates that we aren't still describing the problem. Otherwise, listeners have to reevaluate the sentence part-way through when they realize this is now talking about the solution. In this context, "So," is not in any sense filler, just like the word "like" is a meaningful word even though some people use it as filler. I could try alternatives to "So," but they will all be longer. > * "helps" suggests we only do part of the all, but since every > participant is part of "us" that isn't true. We *DO* coordinate, we > don't just help. Let's omit "help" therefore, too. I'm okay removing "help" here, but for reference, the intent was to avoid claiming that we necessarily succeed at full coordination of everyone. > > * I feel awkward about calling it "our crowdmatching". We should > fundamentally claim the term and only call it "crowdmatching". > "Our" suggests there might be other crowdmatchings. > I had to completely rewrite that section in order to not have that element, but I agree with the concern. > >> You just pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a >> project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers of >> patrons and your budget limit. > > * "just" in an explanation from a biased source almost never turns out > to be true. "just click here" to "just compile the code" and other > variations have conditioned me strongly. To me it is a promise but > rarely delivers. Even when it fits it's still loaded. And this one is no > exception :P > > In this case it is a misleading combination of "just ... a little bit" > when we actually describe a system that is designed to be a "controlled > thermonuclear donation chain reaction". XD agreed > > Maybe start with introducing the limit first to not have to tip toe > around the frightening money part? I don't want to emphasize that because (A) we don't even have the limit functioning yet! and (B) the limit isn't really the point, I just want it included so people don't wonder if it exists. > > >> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we >> build consensus around the most promising projects. > > * Consensus is built indirectly, we shouldn't let people suggest > somebody is directly involved in creating consensus. So a passive form > like "consensus gets built" might fit better. > I agree with the sentiment, but passive voice just sounds bad here to me. > >> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! > > * I want to nit pick on every part so I have to write something here, > too. Done. > > > > I like it. > > > Unrelated to the above we may want to note that we are a non-profit > coop. It can be a short mention but it would adds a lot to the > credibility. - Maybe even set that straight right from the start so it > does suppress peoples thoughts about our "business model" behind all > this while they watch? Or put it in the end and together with naming our > name and slogan? > > I wish we could do that, but our legal status isn't set in stone, so it's best if we not try too hard at this. I do respect that emphasizing that this is a FLO community project and not a VC-backed exploitation system is a BIG deal though… I thought about "Come join our non-profit co-op and us help clear the path to a free and open future!" but it seems crammed in there still. I think we'll have to signal our non-profit and community focus in other places and not try to have it in the video besides the .coop domain. So, here's where I'm at now: SCRIPT2/ The snowdrift dilemma: Whether or not we help, we all benefit from clearing the public road. So, who will do the work? This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, news, research, and so on… That's why we developed crowdmatching! At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers of patrons and your budget limit. This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we build consensus around the most promising projects. Come join us and help clear the path to a free and open future! /SCRIPT2
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
