[P2P-F] fyi: ecoeco_platform specs

[flawer]

hia!

n joy!

http://sharewiki.org/en/Ecoeco_platform

full text:
With reliable shareabilities standards(*) we could experience nearer 
the more meaningful use of private property standards for communicating 
with people because of the needing of material or inmaterials things 
from others. Basic barter, currencism and for frees are the conventional 
managements shareful.be more wants to improve. I.e. instead of forcing 
people acting as: -What is mine is mine and i can give it to someone 
else who then would think it's only hers, we propose: -It is more 
productive for you to share everything you own, you just need to choose 
the right shareful clause for each thing. and then act towards others 
like: -This is mine and i want you to feel it as yours too while you use 
it, but 'yours' doesn't mean you can deny others using it at your free 
will, you should allow and encourage others to shareful it too.


The agencying of ads is a very participatory and communicative 
experience yet to be further enjoyed in ecoeco platforms. It consist in 
you copmfortably publishing offers and wants from other people you are 
regularly communicating with outside the ecoeco platform. I.e. -I 
publish my mums barter offers and her shareful wants from my user 
because she doesn't like computers


The thresholding is a very useful feature for stocks and specially for 
gathering people together for a something common, such as consumer 
groups, planned collective buyings, crowdfunding, etc. The estating of a 
certain mass of needed people or parts to reach a something provoques an 
incentive for achieving that something with the counter countdown, 
automates the dealing (i.e. -I join a wanted threshold from an ad of 
yours and i ask you for getting 3 kilos of pears from you). Thresholds 
expiriness doesn't need to be forced, they could be just an optional 
field. It'd be enhaced with further specifying a posible diverting 
option if the wanted mass is not reached in a certain time, for not 
having to lose what has been achieved meanwhile never having completed 
it fully.


The ads ownership sharing is another not much enjoyed featuring 
anywhere. It could tend to make a more communitarian looking model for 
people managing their things. At least, it will be always an interesting 
available option while dealing with others. It could also save the 
publishing of too similar ads, and so, encourage people working on the 
same things to join more instead of seeing themselves as competing 
rivals.


The active use of a platform wide corporate user * that receives and 
routes resources is a permanent challenge for the platform. It is 
normally foreseen as the one having the or too much power in the market 
/ platform. In fact, at least in decentralized environments, there are 
always administrators taking often a non interacting role. We propose 
Admin to be an active user having an extensive crowdsourced protocol of 
how is (s)he (we) going to do* when you donate something to the Admin. 
This could serve for saving users federations bureaucracies (while not 
impeding them) and would be providing guidance to other people grouping 
themselves for a common ad (less ads, higher quality) that would at the 
same time provide guidance for user Admin to copy what they do.



When thinking in inteligenting the semantics in any of the browsable 
elements of the platform (i.e. -You may be interested in...) unmaterial 
categories relationing (someone's own axiology) would do peers better 
networking than with material excuses (ads, ads categories and tags), so 
they should have more weight in the relationing analysis. I.e. -You 
would be more interested in communicating with John, who is interested 
in developing very similar human values than you. So we need to 
implement inmaterial developings in the platform* (and not just rely in 
material issues for relating peers) and more importantly give that type 
of content a preference (or more weight) in the relationing. It wouldn't 
be bad to implement flow* featruing for the inmaterial developments, it 
would just another tool for easing that.

Also, it is also proved that implicit activity in the platform (i.e. 
-John uses to login at the same time as you) tends to be more valueable 
than the explicit activity (i.e. -Mary likes the same things as you 
like).


The specifying of qualifiability standards* is something more 
transparent and more difficult to game than vague qualifiability 
standards for the advertised products. An easer tool for this is a 
parametered ecological degree table for all ads qualifications that 
could be commonly used by all peers. For securing the quality of the 
qualifications made by any peer, we should allow the crowdsourcing of 
those qualifications (i.e. allowing negative comments on 
qualifications), and also allowing users complaining about fake or gamed 
qualifications from wishful or cracky other peers about their things and 
the table itself through a contact form, external forum* or else.

With consistent qualifiabilty standards we could be featuring 
conditional force for directing the flow, simply with phrasing a clause 
on the terms of the platform estating that benefits arisen from the 
exchanging of those more corrupted things as the table estates have to 
be invested in more pure things. This featuring would give more 
transparency to the adverts and more importantly would enable the 
posibility of offering non ecological things or the selling of things 
for conventional corrupted money just if they are directed to develop 
some other more pure things with them (i.e. -I sell cocacola for euros, 
but i am forced to invest the benefits of that into an ecovillage 
project). This way we would be assuming the contextual present 
corruption that we all have in our daliy doings and would be recicling 
them, instead of keeping the platform for purity and forcing peers of 
managing their corruptions off platform.