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

2016-10-19 Thread Aaron Wolf
On 10/19/2016 02:22 PM, mray wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19.10.2016 22:56, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 10/19/2016 01:25 PM, mray wrote:
>>>
>>> You are partially misrepresenting my point here.
>>> I agree that time, money, attention are limited resources.
>>> I reject that they have to be spend either one *OR* the other way:
>>>
>>> One can pay for Photoshop but also donate to Gimp. An increased Adobe
>>> market share is bad for GIMP but a better funded GIMP poses a bigger
>>> threat to Adobes dominance. It cuts both ways DESPITE mutual influence.
>>> You can go both ways at the same time.
>>>
>>
>> I think the easiest way to clarify is: they are RIVALS, as in time,
>> money, attention are *rivalrous* resources. There is a competition for
>> these things and they *can* be in a state where giving them to one
>> project removes them from the others even though you're right it's not
>> *necessarily* at that point.
> 
> This is my whole point. The exclusiveness you attribute to the choice
> isn't realistic.
> 

I wasn't attributing exclusiveness, that wasn't my intent. I was
attributing rivalrousness, which is real. Unless you're rich, you have
some limit to your budget and everyone has limited attention. Most
people cannot afford to pay hundreds of dollars regularly for
proprietary software licenses *and* donate hundreds of dollars to FLO
software. There's some limit here, some competition.

Besides, every dollar that funds another bit of work on some proprietary
project helps it win market-share over FLO rivals. So, in the
competition for market-share (which is admittedly not always zero-sum if
the market itself grows), *depriving* the proprietary project is helpful
just as funding the FLO project is.

This rivalrousness is the point, and people do face this sort of dilemma
in that the cost of engaging with both options is a higher total cost.


>>
>> Similarly, projects at Snowdrift.coop are in some competition for these
>> same rivalrous resources of time, money, attention. As we've discussed
>> in the past, there is no *need* for some projects at Snowdrift.coop to
>> fail in order for others to succeed, but there *is* a rivalrousness here
>> where we *do* accept and even celebrate the way crowdmatching helps
>> allocate resources when they do reach the state of being in direct
>> competition.
>>
>> I want to express somewhere (not in the video) that there *is* a dilemma
>> of how to allocate these rivalrous resources where the public benefit
>> comes from maximizing the support of public goods where individual
>> benefit may come from paying tolls and attention to the well-funded club
>> goods (but doing so takes rivalrous resources that then leaves less
>> potential available for public goods)
> 
> As long as you keep the two dilemmas separate, nice and tidy there is no
> issue for me.
> 

I agree, there needs to be absolutely no room for confusion about what
"the snowdrift dilemma" is. The other club vs public option dilemma is a
related but distinct dilemma.

>>
>>>

 In the end, I still want to and *will* spread the message that club
 goods are a tragedy, the toll-road choice itself means someone doesn't
 freeride on the public road but *is* avoiding the public road and still
 not helping. You cannot drive on both roads at once (or have one road be
 in both states at once).
>>>
>>> You can drive on both roads at once. See above.
>>>
>>
>> No, you literally cannot drive on two roads at the same time. You can
>> use them both at different times, but you cannot drive on two roads at
>> once, that is just not possible.
> 
> Exactly. That is the point where I think the roads metaphor falls short
> when using it in both dilemmas.
> 

It doesn't fall apart. Like I said with movies: you only watch one movie
at a time. You only use one road at a time. It's as appropriate as a
metaphor can be, i.e. imperfect.

>>
>> Although it doesn't map perfectly to every situation, the two roads
>> dilemma does highlight the rivalrousness that is real. You do not watch
>> two movies at the same time. Or if you do, you have divided attention.
>> You have limited attention, and giving it to one movie at a particular
>> time means less available for a different movie. I can't imagine anyone
>> sincerely disagreeing with that assertion.
>>

>>>
>>> I think A. is much better.
>>> 1. It is simple short and easy.
>>> 2. We convince with what is good about us, not by what is bad about others.
>>>
>>
>> This is the core issue. I'm pretty convinced that A is better for right
>> now and for this video. I'm 100% convinced that A is acceptable in any case.
>>
>> I still want B to be available, I will describe B somewhere sometime in
>> some writing or such. I think B is more compelling in the fundamental
>> way that "I fucking hate those sleazy ads!" is compelling. But it is
>> divisive.
>>
>> To use a different metaphor, A is like me saying "there's some nice
>> aspects to co-ops, but here's some challenges and ideas 

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

2016-10-19 Thread mray


On 19.10.2016 22:56, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 01:25 PM, mray wrote:
>>
>> You are partially misrepresenting my point here.
>> I agree that time, money, attention are limited resources.
>> I reject that they have to be spend either one *OR* the other way:
>>
>> One can pay for Photoshop but also donate to Gimp. An increased Adobe
>> market share is bad for GIMP but a better funded GIMP poses a bigger
>> threat to Adobes dominance. It cuts both ways DESPITE mutual influence.
>> You can go both ways at the same time.
>>
> 
> I think the easiest way to clarify is: they are RIVALS, as in time,
> money, attention are *rivalrous* resources. There is a competition for
> these things and they *can* be in a state where giving them to one
> project removes them from the others even though you're right it's not
> *necessarily* at that point.

This is my whole point. The exclusiveness you attribute to the choice
isn't realistic.

> 
> Similarly, projects at Snowdrift.coop are in some competition for these
> same rivalrous resources of time, money, attention. As we've discussed
> in the past, there is no *need* for some projects at Snowdrift.coop to
> fail in order for others to succeed, but there *is* a rivalrousness here
> where we *do* accept and even celebrate the way crowdmatching helps
> allocate resources when they do reach the state of being in direct
> competition.
> 
> I want to express somewhere (not in the video) that there *is* a dilemma
> of how to allocate these rivalrous resources where the public benefit
> comes from maximizing the support of public goods where individual
> benefit may come from paying tolls and attention to the well-funded club
> goods (but doing so takes rivalrous resources that then leaves less
> potential available for public goods)

As long as you keep the two dilemmas separate, nice and tidy there is no
issue for me.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> In the end, I still want to and *will* spread the message that club
>>> goods are a tragedy, the toll-road choice itself means someone doesn't
>>> freeride on the public road but *is* avoiding the public road and still
>>> not helping. You cannot drive on both roads at once (or have one road be
>>> in both states at once).
>>
>> You can drive on both roads at once. See above.
>>
> 
> No, you literally cannot drive on two roads at the same time. You can
> use them both at different times, but you cannot drive on two roads at
> once, that is just not possible.

Exactly. That is the point where I think the roads metaphor falls short
when using it in both dilemmas.

> 
> Although it doesn't map perfectly to every situation, the two roads
> dilemma does highlight the rivalrousness that is real. You do not watch
> two movies at the same time. Or if you do, you have divided attention.
> You have limited attention, and giving it to one movie at a particular
> time means less available for a different movie. I can't imagine anyone
> sincerely disagreeing with that assertion.
> 
>>>
>>
>> I think A. is much better.
>> 1. It is simple short and easy.
>> 2. We convince with what is good about us, not by what is bad about others.
>>
> 
> This is the core issue. I'm pretty convinced that A is better for right
> now and for this video. I'm 100% convinced that A is acceptable in any case.
> 
> I still want B to be available, I will describe B somewhere sometime in
> some writing or such. I think B is more compelling in the fundamental
> way that "I fucking hate those sleazy ads!" is compelling. But it is
> divisive.
> 
> To use a different metaphor, A is like me saying "there's some nice
> aspects to co-ops, but here's some challenges and ideas that co-ops face
> (that don't apply to other businesses)". B is like me saying "co-ops are
> ethical and just, typical capitalist businesses where an owner dictates
> terms to the workers and clients have ethical problems X, Y, Z, and they
> shouldn't exist, we should only have co-ops."
> 
> To apply that to a strong example: A: "we built a co-op taxi service
> that uses a FLO app to increase efficiency and work in a more reliable
> way than traditional taxis!" versus B. "GPS and software organizing taxi
> service is superb, but Uber getting an effective monopoly with lock-in
> and dictated top-down terms is awful, That's why we built this co-op
> version of that sort of service; and we all should work to support this
> ethical vision and reject Uber!"
> 
> I see why there are good arguments for going with A, but people *should*
> recognize and experience the B argument, and it's a view I happen to hold.
> 
> At any rate, I insist that we accept and welcome B for at least
> something to have available in our arsenal and for whenever we get
> questions that are best answered by B. It's the stronger way to insist
> that what we're doing *really* matters (because club goods are NOT
> OKAY). But for the video, we need to stick with A. A is also safer
> because it is less divisive (and it's simpler).
> 
> 

I agree that 

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

2016-10-18 Thread Aaron Wolf
On 10/18/2016 07:55 AM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>  
>> 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? 
> 

No, I've even heard from real people who are like "yeah, I have that
exact snowdrift dilemma in my neighborhood with people clearing the
sidewalks" and such.

Everyone has experienced toll-roads and billboards.

These are not far-fetched ideas at all. The whole "some town off
somewhere" etc. gives an othering feeling of a story happening to
someone else.

Psychologically, the more concrete details you give, the more the
observer feels they are watching someone else and the more vague and
general it is, the more they can readily see it as their situation and
fill in the details with those that they know from their own experience.


> 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.
> 

While I understand the impetus to consider a name-change, I don't think
it makes sense, and I don't think we'll be more successful by dropping
the core principle explaining the challenge of public goods.

For the video, we can omit the whole toll-road aspect as long as we
frame it correctly. If the point is to just skip the meaningful context
and get down to what we do (which has some merit), we can skip the large
story and just say "With a snowdrift we all need cleared, everyone gets
the results whether or not they helped do the work! That's the dilemma
facing public goods. Other public include music, software…"

In that script, the reason to reference the snowdrift is (A) to just
have a clear simply thing to visualize briefly and (B) to tie into the
name and the whole concept that we *will* discuss in many contexts
later, just not in this first version of a video.

I'm not saying that I prefer the video to gloss over the snowdrift idea
so quickly, but I'm willing to accept that approach in order to just get
a quick first functional-enough video.

A longer video explaining the ideas well, ideally both accurate-enough
to impart the gist of the academic ideas but also feel story-like
enough, would be a great thing to have eventually.

I hope today to find time to write out the concerns I see and the
communication policy that is to be followed for communicating these ideas.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design


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

2016-10-18 Thread Michael Siepmann
 

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.
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design


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

2016-10-17 Thread Aaron Wolf
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.

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.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design


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

2016-10-17 Thread Michael Siepmann
 
On 10/17/2016 09:16 AM, mray wrote:
> 
>

As I mentioned in the meeting today, I think a more story-oriented, less
academic approach would be preferable (though it would be good to have
rigorous academic-style explanations available somewhere for those who
want them, but probably text and images rather than video would be fine
for that).  I've drafted a script to illustrate what I mean.  It's
longish - reading it aloud took me just over 2 minutes - and I'm not
suggesting it as a final draft, but more just something to illustrate a
different approach that I think could be more engaging for a wider range
of people.  It has two voices - narrator and character, in order to
combine a personal story approach with a third-person explanatory approach:

```

{Narrator voice}

Here's a riddle for you: How is creating software, music, movies, etc,
like clearing a snowdrift?

{Character voice}

“A few years ago, the only road out of our town was blocked by a
snowdrift. If enough of us had worked together, we could have cleared it
in no time. But I wasn't going to spend hours shoveling it on my own, or
with just a few fellow shovelers. Seems everyone else felt the same way,
so the snowdrift just sat there. Nobody could get in or out of town for
days.”

“Eventually the snowdrift melted and a slick sales guy drove into town.
He offered us guaranteed snow removal in return for letting “Tolls R Us,
Incorporated” charge tolls, track our driving habits, and plaster the
roadside with 'smart' billboards that would show ads targeted to whoever
was driving by.”

“Nobody wanted tolls, surveillance, or billboards on our beautiful
scenic road. But nobody wanted to be trapped by a snowdrift again, either.”

“Just as our mayor was about to reluctantly sign on the dotted line,
some kid yelled out 'Stop! There's a better way!'”

“You know what? That kid's idea really worked! We call it
/crowdmatching/. Now, anytime a snowdrift needs clearing, a crowd of
people shows up, willing to spend 1 minute shoveling for every 10 people
who shovel too. Last time, 100 people showed up. With 100 people each
willing to shovel for 10 minutes, that poor snowdrift didn't stand a
chance!”

{Narrator voice}

You might not be too concerned about snowdrifts, but we're all actually
in a similar situation with digital goods like music, software, movies,
news, and research.

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.

As a result, many good things don't get created at all, while others get
encumbered with artificial restrictions, ads, and surveillance.

The Snowdrift.coop crowdmatching system creates a viable way to provide
sustainable crowdfunding for projects that create free and open public
goods.

You just make a pledge that says, "Each month, l'll chip in a little for
each person who joins me!"

Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for
everyone!

```





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design


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

2016-10-17 Thread Stephen Michel
When this video is complete, I'd like to make it into a series of gifs 
with text, to post on imgur (which, issues with the platform aside, has 
a large community that I think might be sympathetic to our cause) or 
elsewhere.


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


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

2016-10-17 Thread mray


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
> talking about anything irrelevant?
> 

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


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

2016-10-15 Thread Aaron Wolf
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
transportation.

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 

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

2016-10-15 Thread mray


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 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!"


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.


> 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 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)

>> 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 = 

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

2016-10-15 Thread mray


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 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.

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).


> 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"

> 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 ;)


> 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" ;)

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.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design


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

2016-10-15 Thread William Hale
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:35:21 -0700
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.

I think explaining the road imagery is important and should be
included. I mean we need to answer the "why" this stuff needs to be
fund somehow and that has always been a good hook.

> 
> That's an example of the PUBLIC GOODS PROBLEM where we fail to
> cooperate enough to support resources that benefit everyone.

Only need to reference / keyword once.

> 
> 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'm not sure that "free from limitations" gets the point across.

> 
> 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.

Free and open needs to be used only once and explained in a near by
sentence.

> 
> 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 would focus on two of the three or comma separate. This is the real
meat, maybe cut the cat around it? Don't reuse keywords and get it to
to like 30-45 seconds.

Otherwise, I liked the one you sent initially. It is pretty solid but
will take a fair amount of animation to make it look good before
attention wavers.

That being said, if this launch is really targetting
the people who have been watching us for years, then this audio clip
may make a better impression.

Thoughts?

> 
> Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for
> everyone!
> ```
> 

Use the tagline here, "Crowdfunding for Public Goods".


I really do like the longer version and think it might hit home with
the long-term supporters.

Mray, what do you think could be done to illustrate it?

Wolftune and chreekat, be safe if the weather kicks up!

-- 
Salt


pgpzWmQ_tENW1.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design


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

2016-10-14 Thread mray
Intermission: We need a proper meeting for this, doing this the e-mail
style isn't going to work.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design