Competition resolutions

From Wowwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
THIS IS AN OLD PAGE just kept for historial purposes




Competition resolutions collects cases for solving troubles in the sharing of limited things, at different contexts, and shows all scales of preferences found in this wiki pages.

When there is a concurrent competition over the acces to a resource, simply there is an use dispute conflict which could be resolved in different ways. The lack of effort for negotiating the resolution is what normally impeds further shared use or development of the resource.


At the Shareful Invitation

There are the settly clauses for giving some specific weight to certain people for arbitrating the settling of a posible future dispute.

See also Old_competiton_resolutions



Sharingness degrees

  1. Not worth sharing at all
  2. Shareable
  3. Less shareful
    1. Far shareful
  4. Shareful (See more degrees at the mediatable)


Shareful.be

Koop properties routing

Koop routes the received properties to koopers or flovers that less properties have; more contextually could help in case of enforcement needing them (depemding on the type of received thing, kooper legal status and kooper location); more flovel could increase with that and-or better koopers have been in the past (see: koop cases)


Donations thematic diverting

In the case of donating a resource to a thematic branch you should add its slug when depositing it. The resource will be then shared between the depositaries whenever that is posible or it'll be given to the one which more needs it at the time or more could forward other of its resources to the others from its branch in compensation.




At Participative inversionism

If there is a concurrent competing request for receving the investment, it should be invested in the project(s) that more assists and-or would assist the more others competing projects once completed or others, could be sooner completed and-or has the more % of it accomplished, could be diverted into others the later.


More prefered are the resultant percentatges of the network peers' preferences calculated through the the Participative inversionism standards.


Better presented inversionism

Template:Better presented inversionism

Combining wills

There is an infopoint that gives you an additional 100 points for you adding them in the multiple projects (a collective list) that have been proposed by that community at a presential market and-or are backed, endorsed or actually being done.


Automating a combined preference

Now imagine that in that market, we want to combine our own development preferences, with our sellers preferences and with the collective preferences at each purchase we engage.

These combined sharefulness preferences could be calculated by automatically giving the following directioning at each purchase:

  • 20% (wills) to your election from the collective projects' list
  • 20% (wills) to your personal preferences
  • 20% (wills) randomly given to the collective investment preferences
  • 20% (wills) to the seller's election from the collective list
  • 20% (wills) to the seller's personal preferences

For knowing final ammounts, you should calculate wills per ammount of purchase (more fair), or give the same wills for each purchase regardless of ammount.


At Free currencies creation

Each peer could create its own (incompatible with existing ones) currency in the system.

When the free currency it is created by tasks or by other means, they have to be consensually agreed by members backing that. The doing of those tasks (and so the posibility of getting this newly created currency) should be preferently for the one with the more negative balances in the most used currencies while having the less capacities and-or be auctioned or pseudorandomized.



Caori flow routing

Caori is catalan ori




At free projects

Tasks' assignation

If there is a concurrent competing case for being a task assignee, the task(s) should be assigned to the one who is less engaged in other project's tasks already; less fees is asking for; has a higher restorative status in the project; has more available time and-or resources for accomplishing or managing it the quicker or; has suggested the task.


Decission making

In the case of a technical draw at a non polytelic problem, the resolution should be choosen according to the one who better analizes the pros and the cons of his-her and the other's proposal.

The project could specify further policy on minimums for blocking proposals and quorum needed for those.



See also