Scoring system
From Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people
The scoring system is the logic used by Metascore to evaluate resolutions and perhaps users.
Contents |
Resolution scoring
The current conception of resolution scoring is described in the How open source governments work section of the main page. (Please update that page if this page changes significantly.)
Resolutions and debate
Anyone can propose a resolution within a community, and for each resolution there is a debate. Each debate consists of posts by users, either in response directly to a resolution, or in response to other posts. Each post may be rated by any user as they please. Presentation of posts can be filtered by different factors, among them the rating they are given by the community. There is no limit on the number of resolutions for any particular issue, nor on the complexity or simplicity of a resolution.
How resolutions become laws
Each resolution is scored by users, if they wish to do so. Users may assign positive or negative scores to resolutions, and may assign synthesis scores (see below). A resolution remains law for as long as it can maintain a consensus score and is not contradicted by a law from a higher government (as decided by the courts of that higher government). In order to prevent overly-frequent transitions in laws, once a law attains a consensus score, the threshold for removing the consensus score is raised somewhat.
Synthesis scoring
In addition to scoring resolutions, users may also provide a synthesis score in relation to two or more other resolutions. The synthesis score reflects how effectively (in their opinion) the resolution synthesizes the other resolutions, providing a resolution which they feel addresses the conflicting concerns of the proponents of the other resolutions. In the consensus scoring, below, a synthesizing resolution effectively "steals" points from the resolutions that it synthesizes.
Consensus scoring
A consensus score is a formula consisting of the positive and negative scores assigned to a resolution, and any synthesis scores applied to or against that resolution. Each of these scores is weighted by each user casting the scores. The formula for determining the consensus score will be crafted such that a resolution which does not have significant support from the community will not become a law. To become a law, a resolution must have a significantly higher score for it than against it, and must not be significantly synthesized by another resolution.
User scoring
The current conception of user scoring is described in the Scoring system section of the main page. (Please update that page if this page changes significantly.) Note that there has been significant dispute over the utility of user scoring, and the below needs to be updated in a way that achieves consensus over that dispute.
User score
Each user has an overall sum score, which starts with a base score and is modified by ratings of one's posts, ratings of one's self, one's ratings of others, and various weighting factors. A user who registers as an individual person (as opposed to an anonymous e-mail address) is granted a very large multiplier bonus. Validated registration will not be possible until guiding nonprofit organizations are created and funded.
Post score
Each message one posts is scored by readers of the post who wish to score it. Those scores are then weighted by the reader's own overall score, and the reader's score in that topic and region.
Community factor
Each user has a score factor for each community. Being a registered member of a community gives one a large bonus in that community. Each post one makes in a community gives one a small bonus in that community, weighted by ratings of one's posts in that community.
General features of scores
Some general features of scores are described in the Scoring system section of the main page. (Please update that page if this page changes significantly.)
Ratings are static
Whenever anything is scored, all variables are calculated by their present values. A later change in a value does not affect that score. For example, if a reader with a low score rates a post, then later that reader accrues a much higher score; their rating of that post does not change with their own score. They can, however, re-rate a post, which would then override their previous rating.
Time deprecation
Each score degrades over time such that one tenth of the original score is subtracted each year, and after ten years, the score is removed entirely. The math for this subtraction will be constructed such that a diminishing score does not negatively impact a rating; only that it counts less and less as time progresses. Users may re-cast any score, which resets this deprecation.
Proposed scoring methods
The nature of the scoring system is currently in dispute. The proposed systems are presented below.
(Some of the original discussion of the scoring system from the mailing list is transcribed at Resolutions/0/ and Talk:Resolutions/0/.
Nuanced, recursive scoring
Users and resolutions would each have a score in relation to each tag assigned to them. The score is an amalgam of the scores given to the resolution or user by other users. This is the original mechanism proposed on the Metagovernment website.
Users can assign a score of anywhere from -10 to 10 (where 0 is equivalent to a vote of "present" for quorum purposes).
Possible advantages and disadvantages of this system are presented below.
Builds consensus, scales well
In a system where there can be many, many competing resolutions all attempting to address a single issue, users need a way to give nuanced support for resolutions. If users are restricted to only voting for or against each resolution, then they either have to only vote for the resolutions they feel are the very best, or they have to vote for many resolutions, including ones they do not really like. Both scenarios create barriers to consensus.
User scoring allows increased participation
If users themselves do not have scores, then again people are restricted to on/off states. People either are fully allowed to participate in a community, or may not participate at all.
If instead users have nuanced user scores, then everyone can be allowed to participate in every discussion, and the user scores can act as a mechanism for mediating participation. Otherwise, how would a convicted criminal be allowed to participate in a community? Do they have to be completely excluded, or can they just be given a low score? Likewise, how can small children be allowed to participate in their community? Do we have to use an arbitrary cutoff like the age of 18? With a nuanced user score, absolutely everyone can participate, and the scoring system provides a natural balance to that participatin.
+/- scoring
Users can assign a + or - to a resolution.
Possible advantages and disadvantages of this system are presented below. This section needs to be expanded.
1-5 scoring
Users can assign a score from 1 to 5, such as in a 5-star system.
Possible advantages and disadvantages of this system are presented below. This section needs to be expanded.
Regular Voting
Once a resolution is approved for a vote, everyone in the community who is registered to vote can vote for or against the resolution within a time limit. The resolution should only be allowed to become law if there is a quorum.
I think the basic process for passing a law should follow the system set up in Robert's Rules of Order: 1. The law is introduced; 2. A citizen moves for a vote on the proposed law; 3. A different citizen seconds the law; 4. The community has a limited amount of time to vote on the law. Most laws will fail because of a lack of quorum.
This system will generate a lot of noise. So, citizens will need to be able to list proposed laws according to when they expire, total votes, total views, etc. There could also be committees to vet laws before they are put to a vote by the full board. The system will require very active participation from the citizens to encourage people to vote for laws.
I think anything more complicated than basic voting will be very difficult to explain to the public and even more difficult to implement. Ben Ochoa 22:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
