About the RoWvote Project
IntroductionRoWvote is designed with the intent to discover what society believes are the most important questions, and how they are rated as right or wrong. The attempt is to give numerical weight to public opinions without focusing on the words of those opinions. It is our belief that if society is given access to a free, open and transparent platform to express their opinions, that a publicly regulated system of determining right and wrong will be created. In addition, if the society can express these opinions anonymously and without fear, we believe that we can begin to discover the difference between social morality and inherent morality.
This experiment will be performed as follows:
1. Anyone may pose a question and at any time.
2. Each user then decides whether they believe a question to be right or wrong.
3. Each user then rates the range of how right or how wrong the question is (from 1 to 10).
4. When a question is posed, it is given a value of one to both sides of the right and wrong equation. Then by using the equation Q=R+1/W+1 we give each question a morality rating (Q).
5. An open filtering system allows each user to filter out data within the results as they feel is applicable (ie.location, time, and abuse).
Materials1. An open and restriction free platform to ask and rate questions of right or wrong.
2. Public input
3. Internet access
4. Delivery Method (website)
Method1. Pose a question and share it! If others can relate to the question and value it they will respond to it. By doing this you give the question value. Initially a value of 1 is given to both the right and wrong side of the question. Therefore, using the equation Q=R+1/W+1, Q=1/1, by posing the question Q is given the value of one.
2. Each user then must decide whether a question is Right or Wrong. Once this decision is made the user then expresses on a scale of one to ten, how Right or how Wrong they believe the question to be. Only the most recent vote for each IP will be calculated in the default vote calculation, this prevents ballot stuffing while still allowing users to change their vote. If a user wishes to see the data counting multiple votes across a single IP, this option is available in the filter settings.
3. This data is then added to the collective of data obtained from other users based on this question. The value given to each side is then accumulated.
4. The data is than expressed in 3 ways by default; 1. Whether the majority of users believe the question to be right or they believe it to be wrong 2. The average is calculated for the winning side of the question. It is important to note that Right and Wrong are scaled separately, not as a single average. 3. A moral rating is given using the total accumulated value of Right divided by the total accumulated value of Wrong.
5. Using the expression Q=R+1/W+1, where Q equals the total morality rating of the question, R equals the total value accumulated from the 1 to 10 scale of right answers, and W equals the total value accumulated from the 1 to 10 scale of wrong answers. Q is rounded to 3 decimal places and may reach a maximum of 999. When the moral rating reaches either its minimum or maximum the conclusion is that society has excepted the question as right or wrong.
6. If the moral rating is 999 or greater it is considered Accepted Right. If the rating is .000 or less it is considered accepted wrong.
7. A default filter is used to obtain what we believe will give the most accurate results, however, for the sake of a fair and open experiment, a filtration interface has been created to give each user control over how the questions results are displayed. In essence if the user does not agree with how we have calculated the results they may manipulate the filters in order to display the data obtained in as many ways as possible. The filters are fairly basic for now but we hope to expand on them with input given by users in the future, as empowerment to the user is key to this experiment.
8. We believe that dumping information on people is rarely successful. Part of the methodology of this experiment is to allow the focus of the user to be on one question at a time. We have chosen a presentation method that encourages users to answer questions presented randomly but allow them to loosely prioritize which questions they are involved in based on time, relation to a question or topic, and relevancy to public importance.
9. Not every question will hold value and a method needed to be created for each user to express this. There is a third variable added to the question. The value of zero has been added in between the ranged values of Right or Wrong. This value has been added to indicate the lack of opinion or lack of interest the user has in a question. This along with the traditional option of flagging a question for revision, is calculated with the amount of users participating in each question to determine its relevance to the experiment. Questions with higher relevancy or more likely to come up during the random question stage.
10. We expect the results of this experiment will have many other possible purposes in the future. For example, perhaps a living database will be created to express right and wrong to a future of AMI (Artificial Moral Intelligence). Please keep this in mind when creating and answering questions on this site. The more seriously you take this experiment the more helpful it has the possibility of being in developing a social networked society.
If you have any questions or comments, please direct them to email@example.com.