On 01.06.2015 17:40, Aaron Wolf wrote: > Here's my feeling for now: First, that doesn't remove the ability > counteract the network effect, it just makes it more blunt, because > people could still change their levels, it would only be system-wide.
You are right they, can use that option to counteract the network effect. But projects are in different stages of the network effect; either riding the wave of success – or not. So counter-regulating via one option alone over all projects seems ineffective if not impossible. > > I think the better solution to counteract the tendency of patrons > working to undermine the network effect is to just design things clearly > so they pledge with supporting the network in mind. The new simpler > pledge makes that much easier. We are on the same page here I think. People somehow need to feel good about giving away control AND money. My conclusion is just that having one pledge value is the needed *simplicity* and the *transparency* comes from the non-existing extra options. > > I propose: > > A. we have a one-click default pledge button > B. we offer the more in-depth pledge options > C. we present the pledges as "X per patron" and emphasize the value of > the network effect > D. we finish prototyping and designing and testing > > If it turns out that we see too much inclination toward counteracting > the network effect, we can change the options available in the advanced > pledge form. For example, we could set a maximum level. We could have a > small number of fixed options and not offer an "other" field. > How exactly should the button work now? My problem is that A. and B. don't make up a good prototype. Our expectations towards the pledge button require that it leaves close to no room for misunderstandings or missed options. We should not have a button that is variable in its behavior based on how it is configured in obscure pledge options. If there are options that make sense to use differently from project to project they need to be incorporated into the button. and pretty straight forward. > The worst case scenario for people counteracting the network effect is > that it leads people to not bother pledging because they think their > pledge will result in others *reducing* their pledges. We need to be > wary about that. Absolutely. Transparency towards other donors options is a requirement for trust in our system. We need to be able to reasonably assure that others won't twitch.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
