Stanford Online Deliberation Platform is a platform for Deliberation (careful deliberation) - [I attended the Nobel Prize Summit 2023 because of the hands-on opportunities offered.
- Official Website: Online Deliberation Platform
Experience it for yourself.
- This is a deliberation support system, not [broad listening
- A system for verbal discussion among about 8 people
- It is more advanced than Polis in terms of “deliberation,” but it is orthogonal to the appeal I feel for Polis.
- The official website describes it as “Better online conversations with automated moderation”. Calling this “automated moderation” “AI moderation” is an over-interpretation as of 2023/05.
Automated moderation is a mechanism for moderating a videoconference.
- Continue to cut off people who talk too long.
- Speaking time is visualized.
- When one person is talking, the next person who wants to talk is queued up and everyone can visualize “who wants to talk next”.
- Pre-setting and consumption is visualized for each agenda item.
- After the scheduled time has passed, the speaker moves to the next agenda item without mercy at the end of his/her remarks.
- On the other hand, if everyone is silent, “Shall we move on to the next item on the agenda?” a vote called “Do we proceed to the next agenda item?
- I failed to take a screenshot of this one, below is a similar diallo
- When the time is up, it turns red outside of the scheduled time frame as shown below.
- When you press the interrupt button, the two faces of the main person talking and the person who interrupted are shown (screenshot failed).
- The composition becomes clear: “Mr. B is interrupting Mr. A’s turn of conversation.”
- Is there a limit to the amount of time we can talk in an interruption? I failed to check, but I would put a limit.
- If you’re silent for a while, you’ll be prompted to speak up.
- It does not make it easier to speak up just because you are prompted to do so (personal opinion).
Voting part
- Each individual writes 0 to 1 statement each.
- Vote on it in the order of discussion.
- I think the algorithm for this part of the voting is Boulder Rule.
- Discuss during each discussion time and the submitter can update the text in light of it.
- Then we’ll vote in order of preference.
- Do it twice and hire the top of each.
- Adopted W
- The event was designed so that the questions selected here would be used as potential topics for the panel discussion that followed.
- I think this is a case by case basis.
consideration
- Not similar to Polis.
- The only voting-like part is the last “prioritize your questions” section.
- Basically, it’s like talking in English and listening in English via videoconference.
- Voice Communication Issues
- Automatic subtitles appear, but disappear quickly.
- Cannot be selected on the browser
- So, as a non-native English speaker, I am prevented from using machine translation.
- Just leave it all like a chat.
- Ideally, machine translation should be integrated into the system itself.
- I thought there would be some more mechanism to take care of the “participants from all over the world” since it’s a Nobel Prize Summit, but there was nothing like that.
- What I thought after the two sessions.
- Is voice turn-based communication not the root of all evil?
- voice communication can only output to one person at a time
- There are mechanisms in place to interrupt and prevent one person from talking too much, but that is necessary because we are using voice
- Why don’t they just stop using audio and everyone write in parallel in text?
- Is voice turn-based communication not the root of all evil?
- voice communication can only output to one person at a time
- I went to bed and woke up and realized
- This is a different perspective on the same thing.
- A system of showing the issues on video and discussing them verbally (this one)
- This is a mechanism “to allow people with low literacy skills to participate in the deliberative process
- However, those who have difficulty with spoken communication in English are marginalized.
- Mechanism for non-turn based discussion in text
- This assumes the participants’ writing literacy is high enough.
- A system that enables people who have difficulty hearing or speaking out loud to participate in discussions
- However, poor text communication alienates
- In the end, this is about leaning on the various cognitive characteristics of each individual, so we need both mechanisms.
- But my cognitive characteristics are in the “text asynchronous communication is far better” camp, so I don’t think I’m the right person to do a project to support the voice side of things.
The whole idea of the deliberation
This page is auto-translated from [/nishio/Stanford Online Deliberation Platform](https://scrapbox.io/nishio/Stanford Online Deliberation Platform) using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.