Cagendas Slow Mode and Game Modes

Created

Nov 23, 2022 2:12 AM

Cagendas Slow Mode

I think that cagendas slow mode can work like this

The time for each discussion topic is allocated according to the proportion of votes for the discussion topic.

So basically I think that the slow mode can work we’re timing is just proportionally divided amongst the amount of votes something receives. So you have 15 minutes to allocate of speaking time and you could simply say that if A proposal or topic or agenda item receives 10% of the vote, then it would receive 10% of this week in time, or five minutes.

That’s essentially how it would work and I think this would work quite well. Although there are many questions that we would need to answer and specify.

Timing of Votes

Votes can be submitted and counted between the end of the last meeting and the beginning of the new meeting. Perhaps from 18 UTC on prior week to 16 UTC on the new week. There’s also an option of ending the votes 24 hours in advance or something, but I think up until 16 UTC is probably simpler and better.

10 Minute Buffer Time

In either the slow mode or the fast mode, I think it makes a lot of sense to have a 10 minute buffer. So we only allocate 50 minutes and then we have 10 minutes of extra time now that we can use to go slightly longer on topics if we need to or figure out any issues or resolve any other conversations. Of course we should be brief and attempt it stick to the schedule, but this 10 minute buffer. I think it’s really important and helpful for either version of the game. Eventually it could be 15 minutes or five minutes as well but for now I think that 10 minutes is a good starting point

Naming Conventions for Cagendas

Consider if the fast mode should be called real time or RTS and the slow mode should we call turn-based. Probably not. I like the metaphor with strategy games but probably many people won’t get it and probably better to keep it simple and more straightforward to the point.

There’s also the idea of calling it classic or arcade but and that might work well in situations and I should definitely save this these ideas because perhaps different communities will want to name it different ways, and one of the benefits of classic and arcade is that it it’s in clearly with existing heuristics and understandings of games, but it’s also more playful and doesn’t really accurately describe it very well yeah so maybe fast and slow mode is best or maybe some other naming convention

So for one thing it brings up the question of how do we count the votes or what counts as a vote. I think using Consortium as best as for how to count the votes and as for what counts for the votes… Currently the only thing that works with consortium is total respect points. This is not a great metric and someways because it doesn’t really reflect current contributions that much but it does give a pretty good approximation so it’s not a bad metric and it’s a pretty good metric for right now but it does have some flaws. For example, Felix has not been participating lately and he has many respect points but generally it wouldn’t be optimal for him to have the second most points as he hasn’t been participating or adding value for the community lately and he left the group and so forth. So it makes more sense to have it more alive and in real time. Similarly, other people who have joined more recently like Eric it makes sense for them to have more say because they are more active and Erika also really smart and thoughtful

So currently going that works with Consortium is total respect points. We could also use Google docs or something like that, but then that brings up additional challenges and is not on chain. So that could be worth exploring but I think it’s best to build the features for Consortium for a better measurements sooner rather than later.

The other option for what counts as a vote is the Eden plus fractal delegates. Like Jorge suggested, each delegate could have 100 votes. I could ask Brad if he can build this feature. I think we would want this feature fairly soon either way and this would probably be the fairest way and the most democratic way to pick agenda items. There are Still some deficiencies here and it’s not a perfect system but I think it would be quite good. So perhaps I should propose this for this week and maybe Vlad could build that pretty quickly. The thing that it would need it’s just a way to have all of the delegates in a table and some sort of system where they each get 100 votes for the four weeks that they are elected. So that would take some development work but maybe if I could do it within the next week or two and then I think that would provide quite an organ system that would work quite well.

And of course this would also provide a valuable signal as well.

In either case I think it would provide a good option to allow people to vote with both Respect Points and Delegate points. I’m not sure about this but I think it would be helpful for signaling purposes and just measure in consensus. Also eventually it could be helpful to use respect points over in just the past six weeks or 12 weeks, so I should also ask Brad about this if that is a feature that can be built with Consortium fairly easily

Cagendas game modes

Slow

Fast

See zoom settings to turn off the timer in bottom right corner

Would slow mode of Cagendas be done on Consortium or google spreadsheet?