Well, I guess I'll break in this page. Quick question: is it permissible for this wiki to be used as a tool for translation? I'm thinking of perhaps having a work written in the original on one side and the IAL (in this case Ido) on the other enabling people to come in and translate bits and pieces whenever they have the time. Mithridates 22:31, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, if it has to do with an IAL, and in this case Ido qualifies. Just make a link on the main page for Translations start that page then make a subsection for Ido and put the title there and then organize your translation by chapters, sections etc. But please make links to it somehow so that it is accessible from pages like Ido, and Documents or something of the sort. With regards, Auxilingua 13:33, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
A new paradigm for dispute resolutionEdit
I recently read Rick Harrison's critique of the auxlang movement. He makes a strong point in that, for at least 300 years, no consensus has been reached on what would be the best auxlang. Now, a friend gave me an idea for dispute resolution and I'd like to see if it would work in the case of auxlangs.
Essentially, it's a counterintuitive two-sided pledge "drive". The way it works is that, for a given two-sided dispute to be resolved, those in favor of option A pledge X dollars, and those in favor of option B pledge Y dollars. Then, at a specified date, the pledges are totalled, and whichever side comes out ahead wins the debate, but must pay their pledged money to the opposing side. For instance, suppose Blissymbolics enthusiasts raises $1,000 for a statement like, "Blissymbols are the way to go", and those opposed raise $900. Then, because they raised the most money, Blissymbolics wins, and those opposed are paid $900 by Blissymbolics; however, those opposed are honor bound to concede the statement. Winning is losing, and losing is winning, and that seems fair.
Why I think it might work is that by making a monetary pledge, people are putting a measurable value on how much something is worth to them. If it is really only worth $1 for you to disagree with Blissymbolics, then you will be compensated by that exact amount if you lose, and if you win, then you only lose the exact amount you valued your position at. If you are unhappy with the results, you didn't pledge what it was worth to you.
Obviously, this system favors those who have the most money. However, the thing to notice is that that is an argument for changing the distribution of wealth, not an argument against this system. In fact, this system would redistribute wealth in a meaningful way.
There are several ambiguities. What to do with the extra $100 in the above example, I don't know. It could go back to the pledgers, or be used as a source of funding. Another uncertainty is how speculators might effect the result. I'm in favor of a blind pledging system such that the totals aren't known until the closing date to eliminate this problem. As to legal issues, I don't know anything, except that it's not quite gambling, though it has a superficial similarity.
What I do know is that if auxlangers can't learn how to agree, then the dream is doomed. How can we expect cooperation on the scale of governments and societies when we, who are promoting that cause, disagree without end? --Mattlandau 03:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)