Short Summary:
The current use of social media, Telegram and Discord groups or traditional discussion forums have the following limitations when it comes to OpenGov: Lack of structured debate, Potential for echo chambers, inefficient fragmentation of community discussions into silos, risk of misinformation, no argument visualization, decision making Intransparency etc...
I would like to suggest to implement a new more future proof discussion forum for OpenGov, incl. logical structure for debates, easy identification of pros and cons, clear argument visualization, more diversity of opinion, and the ability to track debate evolution and much more...
Think about how this could improve OpenGov:
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/tour">https://www.kialo.com/tour</a>
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546">https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546</a>&nbsp;
I have NO association with the Kialo project in any way.&nbsp;
If you think this could somehow be a useful and valuable addition to improve OpenGov then please vote for it.
Further information&rsquo;s below.


&nbsp;
Problem

Current OpenGov related discussion in Telegram or Discord groups or on X (twitter) , and the traditional discussion forums are not suited for the future. With the current discussion forums/social media and siloed telegram and discord groups, an open informed discussion is at least very difficult if not impossible. 
&nbsp;Firstly lets start with the limitations for traditional discussion forums when it comes to OpenGov:
<ul>
<li>&mdash; Lack of structured debate features: Absence of tools for organizing arguments logically.</li>
<li>&mdash; Tendency for off-topic discussions: Conversations can quickly diverge, going from one topic to another.</li>
<li>&mdash; Difficulty in following complex arguments: Threads can become convoluted and challenging to follow.</li>
<li>&mdash; No clear argument visualization: It can be very difficult to see the pros and cons at a glance.</li>
<li>&mdash; Scalability challenges: As groups grow, maintaining meaningful conversations becomes more difficult.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;Secondly let&rsquo;s look at social media. X (twitter) threads/AMAs or Telegram and Discord group discussions offer significant value for community building, real-time communication, and sometimes in small groups topic-specific discussions. 


But they have in addition to the previously mentioned limitations these, when it comes to OpenGov:
<ul>
<li>&mdash; Fragmentation of community: Multiple groups on the same topic can lead to scattered inefficient and intransparent discussions.</li>
<li>&mdash; Potential for echo chambers: Groups may attract like-minded individuals, limiting diversity of thought.</li>
<li>&mdash; Faster pace can deter thoughtful responses: Quick messaging doesn't always allow for in-depth debate.</li>
<li>&mdash; Risk of misinformation: Without structured argument and source verification, false information can spread.</li>
<li>&mdash; Limited moderation tools: Managing large or heated discussions can be challenging.</li>
<li>&mdash; Potential for harassment or spam: Requires active moderation to manage.</li>
<li>&mdash; Vulnerability to bots and trolls: Automated accounts can disrupt discussions.</li>
<li>&mdash; Limited archival and search functionality: Finding old messages or specific discussions can be cumbersome.</li>
<li>&mdash; High volume of messages and lack of structure overwhelm new and old users: deterring participation and creating a barrier to entry</li>
<li>&mdash; Intransparency in the opinion and views of OpenGov user/voters can lead to user disengagement.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;


Solution
We should aim for a discussion forum designed to facilitate structured, thoughtful discussion on a wide range of topics.
The discussions should also be in a clear, tree-like structure, making it easy to follow the logical flow of arguments and counterarguments.
It should offer a unique debate format that allows users to constructively explore arguments for and against various positions, with the aim of promoting critical thinking and a deeper understanding of complex issues.
The setup should encourages users to contribute thoughtfully and to consider multiple perspectives, enhancing the quality of discourse on the platform.
The discussion platform should integrate a system for tracking and reflecting changes in consensus, allowing users to see how opinions evolve over time.
We should be fostering structured and focused debates, and significantly enhancing the quality of online discussions.



Features which could be included in a new discussion forum:
<ul>
<li>&mdash; Logical structure for debates: Helps organize thoughts and arguments coherently.</li>
<li>&mdash; Features for efficient navigation: Assists in exploring intricate debates without getting lost.</li>
<li>&mdash; Easy identification of pros and cons: Simplifies the process of weighing different sides of an argument.</li>
<li>&mdash; Access to diverse opinions: Brings a wide range of perspectives, which enhances decision making.</li>
<li>&mdash; Support for in-depth argument analysis: Allows for a more thorough examination of each point.</li>
<li>&mdash; Tools for evaluating argument strength: Enables users to critically assess the validity of points made.</li>
<li>&mdash; Mechanisms for highlighting consensus and disagreements: Clarifies areas of agreement and contention.</li>
<li>&mdash; Encouragement of thoughtful participation and critical thinking: Motivates users to contribute meaningfully.</li>
<li>&mdash; Integration of sources and evidence: Encourages fact-based arguments.</li>
<li>&mdash; Clear argument visualization: Interactive discussion visualization makes it easier to understand complex discussions.</li>
<li>&mdash; Reduction or elimination of off-topic posts: Minimizes distractions, improving the quality of discussion.</li>
<li>&mdash; Customizable debate spaces: Offers flexibility for various discussion needs.</li>
<li>&mdash; Support for collaborative understanding: Fosters a cooperative learning environment.</li>
<li>&mdash; Ability to track debate evolution: Allows users to see how discussions develop over time.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;Please have a look at the following link, and think about how this could improve OpenGov.
This could be the example which could be adjusted/customized for OpenGov/subsquare/polkassembly. 
I have NO association with the Kialo project in any way.
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/tour">https://www.kialo.com/tour</a>
The following link shows how it could look like&hellip; this is a real discussion on their page.
Be curious click around, there is a lot to discover. 
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546">https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546</a> 
&nbsp;Amazing is the interactive Discussion Topology pie chart (pie chart icon at the top), with all the pro and con arguments and how they lead to the main thesis in the middle.
Also great is the interactive tree of pro and con arguments, starting with a central thesis. This layout helps to visualize and navigate through complex issues clearly, with arguments supporting or attacking the thesis and each other in a hierarchical manner.
And much more&hellip;

&nbsp;
Next Steps:


I would like to suggest to implement an improved decision forum as roughly described, which could be adjusted/customized for OpenGov/subsquare/polkassembly.
Initially we could have both the old and a new tab for the new forum and test the new forum e.g. first only for certain Origins/Tracks . We could still go on discussing on X or Telegram/Discord etc, but all major arguments for or against a proposal, should then also be mentioned in the new forum, to be able to get the opinion from others and increase transparency. 
At first it may be additional complexity, but I think it could be a good approach for the future of OpenGov. 


And Yes there is the risk of lack of user adoption, engagement and participation. The new structured format, while beneficial for clarity, may be intimidating or confusing for new users, but there is also the chance that this improves OpenGov significantly over time.
And Yes, for most of the proposals such a discussion forum seems too much for now, just some are highly debated, but this will most likely change in the future. The amount of users and people who want to participate in OpenGov may be relatively small now, but will increase over time. People will get used to it, it has so much more advantages for OpenGov compared to Telegram and Discord or traditional discussion forums. 
Again we need to improve the way we discuss topics on OpenGov with logical structures for debates, easy identification of pros and cons, clear argument visualization, more diversity of opinion, and the ability to track debate evolution and much more...The Decision-Tree and interactive Discussion Topology Pie chart and the easy accessibility and overview of proposal discussions and arguments, could also lead to more user engagement. 
We need to provide an attractive discussion platform and benefit from the diversity of voters.

&nbsp;
If you think this could be a useful and valuable addition to improve OpenGov then please vote for it.
&nbsp;
I&rsquo;m looking forward to your comments and suggestions 
or best practices of how to eventually proceed?
&nbsp;
Thank you!

&nbsp;
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

OpenGov improvements: Gather, share opinions and debate

Short Summary:
The current use of social media, Telegram and Discord groups or traditional discussion forums have the following limitations when it comes to OpenGov: Lack of structured debate, Potential for echo chambers, inefficient fragmentation of community discussions into silos, risk of misinformation, no argument visualization, decision making Intransparency etc...
I would like to suggest to implement a new more future proof discussion forum for OpenGov, incl. logical structure for debates, easy identification of pros and cons, clear argument visualization, more diversity of opinion, and the ability to track debate evolution and much more...
Think about how this could improve OpenGov:
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/tour">https://www.kialo.com/tour</a>
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546">https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546</a>&nbsp;
I have NO association with the Kialo project in any way.&nbsp;
If you think this could somehow be a useful and valuable addition to improve OpenGov then please vote for it.
Further information&rsquo;s below.


&nbsp;
Problem

Current OpenGov related discussion in Telegram or Discord groups or on X (twitter) , and the traditional discussion forums are not suited for the future. With the current discussion forums/social media and siloed telegram and discord groups, an open informed discussion is at least very difficult if not impossible. 
&nbsp;Firstly lets start with the limitations for traditional discussion forums when it comes to OpenGov:
<ul>
<li>&mdash; Lack of structured debate features: Absence of tools for organizing arguments logically.</li>
<li>&mdash; Tendency for off-topic discussions: Conversations can quickly diverge, going from one topic to another.</li>
<li>&mdash; Difficulty in following complex arguments: Threads can become convoluted and challenging to follow.</li>
<li>&mdash; No clear argument visualization: It can be very difficult to see the pros and cons at a glance.</li>
<li>&mdash; Scalability challenges: As groups grow, maintaining meaningful conversations becomes more difficult.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;Secondly let&rsquo;s look at social media. X (twitter) threads/AMAs or Telegram and Discord group discussions offer significant value for community building, real-time communication, and sometimes in small groups topic-specific discussions. 


But they have in addition to the previously mentioned limitations these, when it comes to OpenGov:
<ul>
<li>&mdash; Fragmentation of community: Multiple groups on the same topic can lead to scattered inefficient and intransparent discussions.</li>
<li>&mdash; Potential for echo chambers: Groups may attract like-minded individuals, limiting diversity of thought.</li>
<li>&mdash; Faster pace can deter thoughtful responses: Quick messaging doesn't always allow for in-depth debate.</li>
<li>&mdash; Risk of misinformation: Without structured argument and source verification, false information can spread.</li>
<li>&mdash; Limited moderation tools: Managing large or heated discussions can be challenging.</li>
<li>&mdash; Potential for harassment or spam: Requires active moderation to manage.</li>
<li>&mdash; Vulnerability to bots and trolls: Automated accounts can disrupt discussions.</li>
<li>&mdash; Limited archival and search functionality: Finding old messages or specific discussions can be cumbersome.</li>
<li>&mdash; High volume of messages and lack of structure overwhelm new and old users: deterring participation and creating a barrier to entry</li>
<li>&mdash; Intransparency in the opinion and views of OpenGov user/voters can lead to user disengagement.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;


Solution
We should aim for a discussion forum designed to facilitate structured, thoughtful discussion on a wide range of topics.
The discussions should also be in a clear, tree-like structure, making it easy to follow the logical flow of arguments and counterarguments.
It should offer a unique debate format that allows users to constructively explore arguments for and against various positions, with the aim of promoting critical thinking and a deeper understanding of complex issues.
The setup should encourages users to contribute thoughtfully and to consider multiple perspectives, enhancing the quality of discourse on the platform.
The discussion platform should integrate a system for tracking and reflecting changes in consensus, allowing users to see how opinions evolve over time.
We should be fostering structured and focused debates, and significantly enhancing the quality of online discussions.



Features which could be included in a new discussion forum:
<ul>
<li>&mdash; Logical structure for debates: Helps organize thoughts and arguments coherently.</li>
<li>&mdash; Features for efficient navigation: Assists in exploring intricate debates without getting lost.</li>
<li>&mdash; Easy identification of pros and cons: Simplifies the process of weighing different sides of an argument.</li>
<li>&mdash; Access to diverse opinions: Brings a wide range of perspectives, which enhances decision making.</li>
<li>&mdash; Support for in-depth argument analysis: Allows for a more thorough examination of each point.</li>
<li>&mdash; Tools for evaluating argument strength: Enables users to critically assess the validity of points made.</li>
<li>&mdash; Mechanisms for highlighting consensus and disagreements: Clarifies areas of agreement and contention.</li>
<li>&mdash; Encouragement of thoughtful participation and critical thinking: Motivates users to contribute meaningfully.</li>
<li>&mdash; Integration of sources and evidence: Encourages fact-based arguments.</li>
<li>&mdash; Clear argument visualization: Interactive discussion visualization makes it easier to understand complex discussions.</li>
<li>&mdash; Reduction or elimination of off-topic posts: Minimizes distractions, improving the quality of discussion.</li>
<li>&mdash; Customizable debate spaces: Offers flexibility for various discussion needs.</li>
<li>&mdash; Support for collaborative understanding: Fosters a cooperative learning environment.</li>
<li>&mdash; Ability to track debate evolution: Allows users to see how discussions develop over time.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;Please have a look at the following link, and think about how this could improve OpenGov.
This could be the example which could be adjusted/customized for OpenGov/subsquare/polkassembly. 
I have NO association with the Kialo project in any way.
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/tour">https://www.kialo.com/tour</a>
The following link shows how it could look like&hellip; this is a real discussion on their page.
Be curious click around, there is a lot to discover. 
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546">https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546</a> 
&nbsp;Amazing is the interactive Discussion Topology pie chart (pie chart icon at the top), with all the pro and con arguments and how they lead to the main thesis in the middle.
Also great is the interactive tree of pro and con arguments, starting with a central thesis. This layout helps to visualize and navigate through complex issues clearly, with arguments supporting or attacking the thesis and each other in a hierarchical manner.
And much more&hellip;

&nbsp;
Next Steps:


I would like to suggest to implement an improved decision forum as roughly described, which could be adjusted/customized for OpenGov/subsquare/polkassembly.
Initially we could have both the old and a new tab for the new forum and test the new forum e.g. first only for certain Origins/Tracks . We could still go on discussing on X or Telegram/Discord etc, but all major arguments for or against a proposal, should then also be mentioned in the new forum, to be able to get the opinion from others and increase transparency. 
At first it may be additional complexity, but I think it could be a good approach for the future of OpenGov. 


And Yes there is the risk of lack of user adoption, engagement and participation. The new structured format, while beneficial for clarity, may be intimidating or confusing for new users, but there is also the chance that this improves OpenGov significantly over time.
And Yes, for most of the proposals such a discussion forum seems too much for now, just some are highly debated, but this will most likely change in the future. The amount of users and people who want to participate in OpenGov may be relatively small now, but will increase over time. People will get used to it, it has so much more advantages for OpenGov compared to Telegram and Discord or traditional discussion forums. 
Again we need to improve the way we discuss topics on OpenGov with logical structures for debates, easy identification of pros and cons, clear argument visualization, more diversity of opinion, and the ability to track debate evolution and much more...The Decision-Tree and interactive Discussion Topology Pie chart and the easy accessibility and overview of proposal discussions and arguments, could also lead to more user engagement. 
We need to provide an attractive discussion platform and benefit from the diversity of voters.

&nbsp;
If you think this could be a useful and valuable addition to improve OpenGov then please vote for it.
&nbsp;
I&rsquo;m looking forward to your comments and suggestions 
or best practices of how to eventually proceed?
&nbsp;
Thank you!

&nbsp;
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Short Summary:
The current use of social media, Telegram and Discord groups or traditional discussion forums have the following limitations when it comes to OpenGov: Lack of structured debate, Potential for echo chambers, inefficient fragmentation of community discussions into silos, risk of misinformation, no argument visualization, decision making Intransparency etc...
I would like to suggest to implement a new more future proof discussion forum for OpenGov, incl. logical structure for debates, easy identification of pros and cons, clear argument visualization, more diversity of opinion, and the ability to track debate evolution and much more...
Think about how this could improve OpenGov:
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/tour">https://www.kialo.com/tour</a>
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546">https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546</a>&nbsp;
I have&nbsp;NO association with the Kialo project in any way.&nbsp;
If you think this could somehow be a useful and valuable addition to improve OpenGov then please vote for it.
Further information&rsquo;s below.


&nbsp;
Problem

Current OpenGov related discussion in Telegram or Discord groups or on X (twitter) , and the traditional discussion forums are not suited for the future. With the current discussion forums/social media and siloed telegram and discord groups, an open informed discussion is at least very difficult if not impossible. 
&nbsp;Firstly lets start with the limitations for traditional discussion forums when it comes to OpenGov:
<ul>
<li>Lack of structured debate features: Absence of tools for organizing arguments logically.</li>
<li>Tendency for off-topic discussions: Conversations can quickly diverge, going from one topic to another.</li>
<li>Difficulty in following complex arguments: Threads can become convoluted and challenging to follow.</li>
<li>No clear argument visualization: It can be very difficult to see the pros and cons at a glance.</li>
<li>Scalability challenges: As groups grow, maintaining meaningful conversations becomes more difficult.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;Secondly let&rsquo;s look at social media. X (twitter) threads/AMAs or Telegram and Discord group discussions offer significant value for community building, real-time communication, and sometimes in small groups topic-specific discussions. 


But they have in addition to the previously mentioned limitations these, when it comes to OpenGov:
<ul>
<li>Fragmentation of community: Multiple groups on the same topic can lead to scattered inefficient and intransparent discussions.</li>
<li>Potential for echo chambers: Groups may attract like-minded individuals, limiting diversity of thought.</li>
<li>Faster pace can deter thoughtful responses: Quick messaging doesn't always allow for in-depth debate.</li>
<li>Risk of misinformation: Without structured argument and source verification, false information can spread.</li>
<li>Limited moderation tools: Managing large or heated discussions can be challenging.</li>
<li>Potential for harassment or spam: Requires active moderation to manage.</li>
<li>Vulnerability to bots and trolls: Automated accounts can disrupt discussions.</li>
<li>Limited archival and search functionality: Finding old messages or specific discussions can be cumbersome.</li>
<li>High volume of messages and lack of structure overwhelm new and old users: deterring participation and creating a barrier to entry</li>
<li>Intransparency in the opinion and views of OpenGov user/voters can lead to user disengagement.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;


Solution
We should aim for a discussion forum designed to facilitate structured, thoughtful discussion on a wide range of topics.
The discussions should also be in a clear, tree-like structure, making it easy to follow the logical flow of arguments and counterarguments.
It should offer a unique debate format that allows users to constructively explore arguments for and against various positions, with the aim of promoting critical thinking and a deeper understanding of complex issues.
The setup should encourages users to contribute thoughtfully and to consider multiple perspectives, enhancing the quality of discourse on the platform.
The discussion platform should integrate a system for tracking and reflecting changes in consensus, allowing users to see how opinions evolve over time.
We should be fostering structured and focused debates, and significantly enhancing the quality of online discussions.



Features which could be included in a new discussion forum:
<ul>
<li>Logical structure for debates: Helps organize thoughts and arguments coherently.</li>
<li>Features for efficient navigation: Assists in exploring intricate debates without getting lost.</li>
<li>Easy identification of pros and cons: Simplifies the process of weighing different sides of an argument.</li>
<li>Access to diverse opinions: Brings a wide range of perspectives, which enhances decision making.</li>
<li>Support for in-depth argument analysis: Allows for a more thorough examination of each point.</li>
<li>Tools for evaluating argument strength: Enables users to critically assess the validity of points made.</li>
<li>Mechanisms for highlighting consensus and disagreements: Clarifies areas of agreement and contention.</li>
<li>Encouragement of thoughtful participation and critical thinking: Motivates users to contribute meaningfully.</li>
<li>Integration of sources and evidence: Encourages fact-based arguments.</li>
<li>Clear argument visualization: Interactive discussion visualization makes it easier to understand complex discussions.</li>
<li>Reduction or elimination of off-topic posts: Minimizes distractions, improving the quality of discussion.</li>
<li>Customizable debate spaces: Offers flexibility for various discussion needs.</li>
<li>Support for collaborative understanding: Fosters a cooperative learning environment.</li>
<li>Ability to track debate evolution: Allows users to see how discussions develop over time.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;Please have a look at the following link, and think about how this could improve OpenGov.
This could be the example which could be adjusted/customized for OpenGov/subsquare/polkassembly. 
I have NO association with the Kialo project in any way.
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/tour">https://www.kialo.com/tour</a>
The following link shows how it could look like&hellip; this is a real discussion on their page.
Be curious click around, there is a lot to discover. 
<a href="https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546">https://www.kialo.com/should-the-united-states-have-more-than-two-major-political-parties-15546</a> 
&nbsp;Amazing is the interactive Discussion Topology pie chart (pie chart icon at the top), with all the pro and con arguments and how they lead to the main thesis in the middle.
Also great is the interactive tree of pro and con arguments, starting with a central thesis. This layout helps to visualize and navigate through complex issues clearly, with arguments supporting or attacking the thesis and each other in a hierarchical manner.
And much more&hellip;

&nbsp;
Next Steps:


I would like to suggest to implement an improved decision forum as roughly described, which could be adjusted/customized for OpenGov/subsquare/polkassembly.
Initially we could have both the old and a new tab for the new forum and test the new forum e.g. first only for certain Origins/Tracks . We could still go on discussing on X or Telegram/Discord etc, but all major arguments for or against a proposal, should then also be mentioned in the new forum, to be able to get the opinion from others and increase transparency. 
At first it may be additional complexity, but I think it could be a good approach for the future of OpenGov. 


And Yes there is the risk of lack of user adoption, engagement and participation. The new structured format, while beneficial for clarity, may be intimidating or confusing for new users, but there is also the chance that this improves OpenGov significantly over time.
And Yes, for most of the proposals such a discussion forum seems too much for now, just some are highly debated, but this will most likely change in the future. The amount of users and people who want to participate in OpenGov may be relatively small now, but will increase over time. People will get used to it, it has so much more advantages for OpenGov compared to Telegram and Discord or traditional discussion forums. 
Again we need to improve the way we discuss topics on OpenGov with logical structures for debates, easy identification of pros and cons, clear argument visualization, more diversity of opinion, and the ability to track debate evolution and much more...The Decision-Tree and interactive Discussion Topology Pie chart and the easy accessibility and overview of proposal discussions and arguments, could also lead to more user engagement. 
We need to provide an attractive discussion platform and benefit from the diversity of voters.

&nbsp;
If you think this could be a useful and valuable addition to improve OpenGov then please vote for it.
&nbsp;
I&rsquo;m looking forward to your comments and suggestions 
or best practices of how to eventually proceed?
&nbsp;
Thank you!

&nbsp;
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

- **Problem Statement:** Current social media and traditional discussion forums lack structured debate features, leading to fragmented and inefficient discussions in OpenGov.
- **Significance:** Enhancing online discussions in OpenGov can lead to improved transparency, diverse opinions, and critical thinking.
- **Proposed Solution:** Implement a new discussion forum with logical structure, clear argument visualization, diverse opinions, and tracking of debate evolution.
- **Expected Outcomes:** Increased user engagement, improved decision-making, and enhanced quality of discourse in OpenGov discussions.

#2141 OpenGov improvements: Gather, share opinions and debate

No Active Proposals