Issue map and idea card
On the How a conversation works page we described how a statement turns into individual thoughts. This page shows what is meant to come out of many such thoughts: an issue map and an idea card.
An issue map is an organized collection of arguments, experiences and open questions around one question. An idea card is a description of an idea: where it leads and what the next step is.
The Omniforum prototype is under construction. Everything we describe below is at the design stage, and we have not yet completed any trial.
More: Omniforum whitepaper, chapter 1.
From a chain of thoughts to a map#
Thoughts are connected by relations: one justifies another, raises a caveat, sets a condition or gives an example. The whitepaper calls a sequence of thoughts in which premises lead to a conclusion a chain. At each step we are to record what rule it rests on, what assumptions it makes and where it has gaps.
An issue map sets side by side the chains of different people, including mutually contradictory ones. On the issue of trees on our street, one chain may lead from shade during heat waves to the conclusion that they are worth planting, and another from the cost of watering and roots under the sidewalk to the conclusion that shrubs would be better. When the same word means something different to the participants, we record it as separate concepts with the same label, so the source of the misunderstanding is visible right away.
An issue is a question that someone wants to return to because they want to understand, compare or do something together. A permanent link leads to everything that concerns it: the question, sources, arguments, the state of knowledge and the history of changes. A private issue is handled in Suveria (the private space for working with digital intelligence); a shared register of issues is a direction we will test in a separate trial.
More: Omniforum whitepaper, chapter 5 and section 5.1.
How to read the map#
The map is meant to open calmly. First you see one main conclusion with a short description of its strength, and below it a few paths of justification to choose from. You can expand the one that matches your doubt, go back or finish; at any moment you can get to the original statement. An honestly described dispute is just as valuable a fruit of a conversation as a shared solution.
When you return to a topic after a week or after a year, you are meant to see only what has changed: new experiences, corrections, results of trials and questions that are still open. After reviewing the changes, you get a clear message that this is everything, and you can calmly return to your own affairs.
More: Omniforum whitepaper, chapter 5 and section 1.1.
How strong a conclusion is#
With a conclusion we want to show three things separately:
- how strong and independent the evidence is;
- how well justified the conclusion itself is;
- how broadly people have agreed with it.
One measure does not replace another: full agreement among participants that rests on a single unverified account is still a weak conclusion. We have yet to work out the scale for these assessments, and we do not add apparent uncertainty to well-established facts.
The manifesto divides shared deliberation into facts (what can be checked), values (needs and convictions about what is right) and hypotheses, that is, bold ideas with a marked condition, “what would have to become possible for this to work.” Facts are settled by sources, not by the number of votes; in matters of values every person is an equal point of reference. In Omniforum every thought is to receive such a marking.
More: Omniforum whitepaper, chapter 5 and manifesto, section 5.1.
Idea card#
Bold visions are easily dismissed as detached from reality, and cautious plans as lacking a goal. The idea card connects the two: it shows where we want to get to and what the next step is. It gives the idea's status (working, design, hypothesis or vision) and answers eight questions:
- What is it? A definition and the expected result.
- What for? Whose needs it meets and what an ordinary day looks like for a person who uses it.
- Why? The problem in today's world, described with facts and sources.
- How, and from what? The mechanism, existing resources and the next step.
- What would have to change? Technical, legal and economic conditions, as well as beliefs.
- What balance, and what other paths? Who gains, who bears the costs, and what alternatives there are.
- What trial? What we will check first and what result will lead us to change our minds.
- Has something similar happened before? A similar example shows that the path is possible, but does not prove that we will succeed.
A card is not a single thought, but a view of many connected concepts, claims, sources, conditions and trials. The first cards are to be the ideas from our manifesto.
More: Omniforum whitepaper, section 5.2.
From an idea to an initiative#
When a conversation leads to a shared agreement on what is worth doing, an initiative can be founded, that is, a proposal for a specific action. It keeps links to the thoughts and sources it rests on, and it has a clearly described goal, action and way of checking its effect.
Before it goes to a decision about shared money, it needs what the manifesto calls the green path: a chain of connections that shows its grounding in facts and the community's agreement on the values it stands on. Then come separate decisions: on the goal, on further work, on the cost estimate and on implementation; agreement on the goal does not settle the cost or the deadline. Until binding voting exists, these decisions are made by the board after consultations. After completion we publish the actual cost, the result and the conclusions, also when the trial did not succeed.
More: Omniforum whitepaper, section 5.3 and manifesto, section 5.3.
What we show higher up, and what we do not#
The order in which we show content has transparent rules and can be changed. We want to try out several orders side by side:
- chronological;
- by question;
- by documented contribution, that is, what an entry brings to the map, not the number of entries by its author;
- by recognition across different opinion groups.
In the last of these, an argument goes higher when it is accepted by people who judge differently on other issues. Opinion groups are to be calculated by the system from the ratings alone: no one chooses them, no one belongs to them and no one manages them.
The content and the source with its date are to be in the foreground. We do not keep public contribution counters or rankings of people, because they encourage a race and the flooding of the map with entries, also by bots. We want attention to follow what sheds light on an issue, not what stirs emotions most strongly.
More: Omniforum whitepaper, chapter 6.
Read it and tell us what you think#
You will find the full description of maps, cards and initiatives in the Omniforum whitepaper, especially in chapters 5 and 6. If something puzzles you or seems wrong, highlight that passage in the document and use the “I have a comment” button, or write to salve@novusignis.org.