Recent PostsView All
2017-07-16 10:13:49 sqlaps
Here is the process used in the second Beta test. Each Beta is an iteration towards the gamification of an App. The next beta will vary.
- 1 Register and fill out the Juror Application (our voir dire) and choose-or-nominate a topic.
- 2 Once accepted—login. (The jury will be sat in ideologically matched sets as they fill up)
- 3 Begin THE QUESTIONING by asking clarifying questions, and specifying whether it requires an answer with one of these SIX ASPECTS (using a color coded sorting system) Data/White, Intuition/Red, Best Case/Yellow, Worst Case/Black, Procedure/Blue, or Innovation/Green. This is a lateral thinking or team thinking process loosely based on deBono’s Six Thinking Hats.
- 4 Begin OFFERING EVIDENCE by answering other jurors’ questions with headlines and resource link. Write an IDEA-logical summary: why is this Important? why is it Different than other evidence? why is it Exciting? how is it Applicable? Four great sentences. We need tight style guidelines to keep all this evidence readable.
- 5 CRUNCH THE EVIDENCE by rating the answers on the five star scale one each (or not) for C=Credibility, R=Relevance, U=Uniqueness, N=Not hearsay, and C=Conciseness, and by doing so you H=Honor our GREATER evidence commitment. CRUNCH the evidence! In-other-words let the ratings do most of the talking.
- 6 INTERROGATE THE SIX ASPECTS. We want to break the problem, not our fellow jurors. We're on the same team. The broken public policy is the opponent. We don’t want this to devolve into a typical comments section rabbit hole. This is the place for intelligent discourse using questions, answers, general structure, and evidence as currency. Instead or arguing, ask a really insightful question. We all might be surprised by the answer. Whoever asks the best questions, gets the best answers—and we all win!
- 7 Read as much as you can/want using the sorting protocols. Especially pay attention to the points of view you don’t understand well—until you understand it so well you have new and excellent insights.
- 8 Search for errors and omissions. [MY PET PEEVE]
- 9 If you discover a valid source antithetical to your opinion still disclose it. Not doing so makes you guilty of withholding evidence otherwise known as holding Occam’s Broom (not a good thing).
- 10 Once the EVIDENCE is largely in, you will begin offering solutions to be put on the Juror’s Ballot. Jurors will co-create the ballot, and approve the final draft before voting. No one is gaming the system here. Your questions, your answers, your solutions. A Jury Room will be available for conversation at this stage. Think not Twelve Angry Men—but—A Bunch of People Quite Curious about Finding Public Policy Leadership Solutions.
- 11 VOTE for the solution options. The results will be formatted in descending order of support (100% unanimous, >95% virtually unanimous, >90% vast supermajority, >80% pareto supermajority, >75% Article V supermajority, >66% strong supermajority, >60% bare supermajority, >50% mere majority, 50% minority opinions.
- 12 The VERDICT will then be written up in summary, journal long form, perhaps a book, and the evidence archived for the public, the GREATER Jury, to read and decide for themselves—if you/we issued a truly GREATER verdict. If so, GREATER Jurors can immediately petition the government for the solution(s) of their choice.
The GREATER Jury trial should take an hour or two a week per juror for two to three months, time-shifted from your smart phone, tablet, laptop or desktop.
Where can this lead?
The GREATER Jury being THE trusted source for public policy leadership news? Sound greater than the status quo?
Founder and Baliff