Passing the Talking Stick
Danyl Strype PublicSeen by 48One problem I've noticed with all asynchronous online discussion and decision-making (whether by email, web forum, Twitter, Loomio etc) is that it tends to privilege the people with the most free time to spend writing comments, the fastest typing speed etc. Two people in a group can argue back and forth for days before other group members have time to check in, and then need to wade through walls of text to understand where the discussion is at, before they even start to compose their own comment. Too often I suspect, they just don't bother and leave the decision to an increasingly unrepresentative subgroup. It doesn't help that without moderation from less passionate group members, discussions can easily devolve into arguments and flaming, which is even more off-putting.
For non-urgent decisions, which would really benefit from a wide range of contributions, it would be good to have a feature where posting is turn-based. Once I've commented, I can't comment again until everyone else in the group has either commented, or 'passed the talking stick' to indicate they have nothing to add. This would slow the pace of the conversation, and prevent back-and-forth bickering between a handful of group members. It would also keep the quieter and busier members engaged in the conversation, as they would know they at least need to login and "pass the stick" regularly to allow the conversation to continue.
This would make a really nifty plugin, I reckon.
i think this is easier as a social contract than a hard rule coded into loomio. at least the cost of coding it at this point is perhaps not worth it imo
Crazy thought: the more you write, the smaller the font gets
Quakers have what I guess you'd call a 'facilitating move' .
If a few voices are dominating, someone can simply say "I'd like to hear from others". Some get a hint, others get a prompt.
Also, multiple pieces of 'ministry' can be appropriate if they truly are raising multiple points, not simply arguing old ones.
As I see it, there are two main ways you can increase the diversity of the discussion:
Keep the asyncronous option, but display the comments sorted or modified (eg change font size) by an algorithm possibly based on moderator/reader feadback.
Or provide some form of blocking/turn based synchronisation for writing user comments.
I'm in favour of both ways of attempting to give more diversity to the conversation, so long as it does not turn evil and ruin everything.
Hi @robertguthrie, I think it would be hard to keep a turn-based option non-evil.
If I'm talking away to myself for hours and no-one is responding, then
1) We don't know for sure that that is a bad thing in the big picture.
2) If it's not helpful, people will just stop listening to me and skip my posts anyway, and
3) Everyone else not responding is an example of the "Law of Two Feet": one of the values of Loomio is that people can choose their own level of engagement with any discussion.
Of course, habitual monologuing is not ideal.
But Loomio already allows us to provide such rich, subtle feedback to each other, once we are attuned to it - analogous to body-language in real-time, face-to-face talks.
Which posts are being liked or not liked, and by whom, along with a few people throwing in written feedback or 'facilitating moves' can work well.
One last point (so I can try and fit this in one comment! (I'd prefer to break it into three)....in looking for numerical 'diversity':
are we assuming a conversation between two people, with others on the periphery or absent (how do we tell which?), is non-productive? (I have in mind a 'fishbowl' approach).
Do we assume conversation doesn't work?
I'll try to provide a link here to a great thing called
"Accountable Talk (TM) - Conversation That Works"
Hopefully this link still works, library computer doesn't have modern browser.
are we assuming a conversation between two people, with others on the periphery or absent (how do we tell which?), is non-productive?
I'm not assuming this, I'm sharing that this has been my experience on a few occasions. The infamous "editing comments" discussion is one which comes to mind.
Just to be clear, I'm not proposing that all Loomio discussions be turn-based, but rather that switching a discussion to 'talking stick' mode is available as an admin option, just like a facilitator has the option of calling for a circle round in a face-to-face meeting.
Longer term, I can envision a group member starting a new discussion being able to choose from a number of discussion styles, including the standard style, a 'talking stick' style, and possibly others, depending on what they think will suit the discussion topic.
I definitely do not want to discourage in-depth conversation (between two people, or more), even it it means giant walls of text. I know that's offputting to people who aren't big readers, don't have much time, or just want to engage on a summary/TLDR level, but many times deep thinking goes on in those exchanges, resulting in great solutions emerging. I guess my ideal would be that people could opt into that in-depth process, and once it ran its course, there would be an easy and clear way for others to get reliable summary of the valuable outcomes of that investment made by others.
@alanna For such an opt-in, you could shout "Let's fishbowl!!"
I agree with Alanna that conversation should be encouraged not limited. Perhaps on a topic with a vote, posts that relate to a certain position (yes, no, abstain, veto) could be hashtaged to that vote. So there'd be the piechart, then a drop down section for each position. Thus you could hover over the 'Yes' section and have a summary of why people think its a good idea, or hover over the 'No' section and get the posts for why its a bad idea. The 'like' button could be used to place the best summaries/points in the drop down at the top of the feed.
It would be a way of breaking down potentially huge discussion pages into manageable sections.
Ok, let me try to give another use case for my proposed feature. Let's say a political party was using Loomio to formulate policy. If they are a registered party, there are at least 500 members who may want to have input into any given discussion. A discussion is successful when it enables the synthesizing of all the member's knowledge and ideas into a workable policy proposal.
If 2 members start having a back-and-forth argument between their pet positions, everyone else's input can be lost in the flood. If the exchange gets heated, this discourages a lot of people from saying anything, or even reading. If an admin can step in and nip this in the bud by calling a round/ 'talking stick circle', this slows the discussion down a bit, and allows everyone else time to digest what's been said, and write their comment.
What I'm basically talking about is giving a facilitator the ability to stop people doing the digital equivalent of shouting everyone else down at a meeting.
It also acknowledges the reality that while some party members may work office jobs or have other daily routines which give them lots of opportunities to quickly jump online and make multiple comments, others may be working outside all day, and only have a short time in the morning, or in the evening after putting the kids to bed, to read and comment on Loomio.
@strypey Ok, I get where you are coming from now. Maybe having a single thread for a subject isn't the most effective method. I don't think censorship is the answer but there is a need to extract information content as effectively as possible. Apart from the suggestion I made above, maybe there are other possibilities:
Have "@" replies become a drop-down to the original post. So it would look like Strypey said:... and at the bottom maybe 1 likes and 2 replies, which could be read after clicking. This would let talkative member chat away without filling up pages of space.
Another option could be an editable wiki along the side of the thread, which would serve as a discussion summary once it starts to get rather long.
@strypey one way to facilitate in that situation using current Loomio features is to start a proposal. Even if it's just to decide an early premise for an issue, or agree a protocol for continuing the discussion, or devolve to a working group. That way, everyone does have one chance to state their position, and the length of what they can say is limited. Often times complex issues require a series of proposals that build on each other.
Ok, but what about where the back-and-forth disagreement I describe above is about a current proposal, as in the ? Since we can have only one proposal at a time, this doesn't really solve the problem as I've described it. I guess the 'Ideas' feature might help when I gets rolled out.
@rorytb I've used rounds and talking sticks/ stones in many in-person groups, to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak and be heard, and I've never heard it described it as "censorship". It's a standard facilitation tool in consensus groups.
Threaded replies (a la FB) have been proposed elsewhere. They don't address the need to slow the discussion down, so everyone has time to read and respond to all of it.
Another option could be an editable wiki along the side of the thread, which would serve as a discussion summary once it starts to get rather long.
That's what the Context Box is for. We've had it for some time, and while a good feature for many things, it hasn't solved the problem I'm describing.
@strypey That's cool, I can see how in a group of people sitting around in a circle it would be helpful. I'm new here and still trying to learn my way around, what is this Context Box? I haven't come across it.
The issue I see with a talking stick method on Loomio is that it staggers the discussion. What if someone thinks of something like would like to contribute that would be helpfult to everyone a couple minutes after posting, they then have to wait for a full circle of all the members, what if one of those members had gone away for the weekend? Perhaps there is a way around that and I haven't fully understood the methodology.
The thread replies wouldn't so much slow the pace down as make the format of the thread more digestible, rather than one continuous stream of comments, you would have a stream of comments with tangent conversations that could be expanded and collapsed at the readers discretion.
Inevitably, the more successful Loomio becomes and the larger the community grows, I think people are going to be able to read everything anyway, although some people may. By and large it may be more practical to find a way of creating more accessible method for sourcing content information. However, I recognise I'm not as familiar to this system as you and the other members, just adding my 2 cents.
Just to shift attention from the 'passing' to the 'picking up' part of 'talking stick' rituals:
A talking stick can be picked up from the centre table without anyone prompting.
To feed in some more Rappaport (amazon link here), the most fundamental meanings can seem the most tautological.
The most fundamental meaning of picking up a talking stick is:
"I've picked up this talking stick and I'm holding onto it until I let it go"
(I told you this Rappaport guy was good ;D )
It's with this meaning in mind that we could consider what (if anything) should happen when someone presses the "picks up talking stick" button (literally or figuratively).
Oh, and after co-opting the talking stick metaphor, I'd better offer another one to replace it:
@strypey, how about "check-in round"?
@rorytb The context box is the area between the discussion title and the discussion - see where it says "Edit discussion context"? It took me a while, too.
@strypey would this idea meet your needs, and be feasible in a large group, while maintaining the Law of Two Feet idea that everyone is free to contribute intensely or ignore entire discussions?
" IDEA " "I'd like to hear from others" / "check-in round"
Somebody could call this, and everyone would be 'paged'/invited to pitch in. The "check-in round" would be open for a certain amount of time, and responses filed away much as proposal positions are - the difference being, you don't need a proposal or a position.
People could make any kind of response (length-limited?) - it could be substantive, or a 'facilitating move', or a helpful process comment such as:
Abe: Yeah Jim's right on this one.
Beth: Geez, can't I leave the room for 5 minutes without you guys starting a cockfight?
Gabe: I'd like to remind everyone of our Rule of Engagement Number 29
Dell: Actually I've found it helpful seeing these two thresh out the issues like this
Elmo; yawn
etc.
This could be handy near the beginning of discussion, before any viable proposals emerge - and again towards the end if discussion seems to have withered without resolution.
I imagine this all happening without 'locking' the ongoing conversation - and people could participate or ignore at leisure.
If people can participate or ignore, how it this functionally any different from commenting?
If the idea is each person has one length-limited chance to make a statement, how is it different from statements of position?
Guys, the challenge here is not "how many new features can we design for Loomio", it's "how much can we accomplish with as simple a design as possible".
Yes, @alanna, I agree on your last bit. I like the way you tend to offer "here's how we could meet this need without adding the complication of a new feature." That's the best kind of answer to my mind.
But that un-met need was still hanging out there to be played with....
To answer your questions....yes, exactly, those functions are already there.
What I was offering as a suggestion (not proposing) is, functionally, "proposals and position statements" - without the need for either proposals or position statements.
Whether this kind of thinking is redundant or simplifying... for me it's too soon to tell.
I'd like to hear from @strypey
Cool. I think this will be solved by the "ideas" feature that's already in the pipeline.
I like where this seems to be going.
I noticed when voting that you get a chance to state your reasoning for your position, however for what I can tell that's the only way to post a position? Outside of the discussion thread I mean.
Maybe that's all that's necessary. If people could state their position in that segment before voting (maybe before a proposition is made too depending on the context) and could edit at will then the discussion thread remains for exactly that, discussion.
Meanwhile if someone wanted to simply get an overview without having to read through the discussion they can go through the positions, in which people don't converse but summarise the train of logic that leads them to viewpoint.
It nicely separates the two. The discussion board is for general conversation related to the topic, questions, rebuttal, additional information, etc. The positions page is a brief summary in which each participant justifies their position but no not respond to each other.
Hi @rorytb
Maybe that’s all that’s necessary. If people could state >their position in that segment before voting (maybe >before a proposition is made too depending on the >context) and could edit at will then the discussion >thread remains for exactly that, discussion.
Hi @rorytb , that's pretty much exactly how it works now - you can change or edit position as often as you like before the proposal is closed, and you can summarise your position without indicating approval or disapproval, by taking the 'abstain' position.
You just need some kind of proposal, any kind of proposal, to get started.
I think the way it is currently is by design - people really shouldn't have positions to state until the discussion has played out enough that a proposal is emerging. If someone is already clear on their position, the should start a proposal and see how it flies with the rest of the group. That dynamic is the secret sauce. Basically, if your opinion is either so unclear that you can't for a proposal, missing key information, or you know the group wouldn't go along with it, then you should probably be reconsidering your opinion!
Hi @johngraham
Yeah the main difference I was referring to is always having a position box available not just during a vote. The main reason I suggest that is because you can have a position before you have a clearly defined plan of action.
It's as simple as "I think this is a good/bad idea."
As the discussion develops so do positions: "I think it's a good/bad idea. We should use X methodology or take Y steps to achieve this idea."
@alanna while I see where you're coming from, in my opinion proposals as an off the bat to see how it flies might also have the potential to confine the topic. For example, if someone were to put forward a proposition that we achieve X goal by taking Y steps, and everyone votes yes, no, abstain, then there is no room to vote to achieve the same goal taking Z steps. It can come up in the discussion but that's not really the same. The Z steps option can only win if the group decides against method Y.
By having an open position box even without a proposition to vote on, everyone puts forward either their orientation on the subject or a trial proposition if they have a clear idea about it. This could allow for better consensus building.
The discussion is the brainstorming section.
The position box is the consensus and trial proposition section.
Which leads to a proposition.
On that note propositions might work well if done in stages. Starting with a vote on wether the crowd wants to achieve whatever is put forward. Then a vote on the means (that part could be done on a poll of popular options, or one that anyone can add to).
My apologies if I've misunderstood any of the features here.
Yeah I see what you're saying @rorytb - have you seen this play out in your own groups? Would be interested in hearing about how you've seen it go in practice.
I do think the "ideas" feature @jonlemmon is working on will address this use case directly. I'm interested in how it will work.
@alanna I was speaking theoretically. You may be right and it's simply more efficient and easier to keep things as it is and deal with those sort of issues when/if they occur. For most situations the issue I outlined above is unlikely to occur and having multiple threads (as in a discussion and the positions) going at once may just overcomplicate things.
I suggest that you guys check "Summly"... It was a young guy who developed this app to summarize any long text based on key words or something (I really don't know how it works, but it works).
For larger groups, this could be combined with an option for me to 'leave the room', if I really don't have any interest in a particular discussion or its outcome. However, I think if this is happening, it probably means the group needs to make more use of subgroups, rather than launching discussions of limited interest in the main group. Also, I suspect slowing down complicated, big picture discussions would make it easier for all group members to remain engaged in them.