How ideologi Determines the Value of Ideas

   

► During the evaluation process of an exchange, all participants are given an algorithmically-selected group of directives from other anonymous participants to review and evaluate based on the initiator’s objective.  They are given a fixed number of ions during each evaluation phase to distribute amongst the directives assigned to them for review, as well as an option to distribute some, all, or none of the Ions to "None of the Above."  For example, if the number of evaluations per phase is 5 and the number of Ions per phase is 100, then each participant would distribute their total amount of 100 Ions to each of the 5 directives being evaluated by them (or, if the initiator of an exchange chooses, "None of the Above") as they see fit.

In order to optimize the level of conceptual coherency within an exchange, a distribution agent called MAIA (Metaheuristic Agent for Iterative Analogy) will increase or decrease the number of times a particular directive is distributed within each evaluation phase of an exchange based on the level of deviation in the scores it receives in the previous evaluation phase.  So, for example, if one directive receives almost identical scores from each of the participants who reviewed it in the previous evaluation phase, then the number of participants determined to review it during the next evaluation period could be reduced from the standard number of evaluations.  The system will then calculate the number of ions received by that participant based on prorating their score based on a standard number of participants.  Conversely, if the scores received by a particular directive during an evaluation phase has an excessively high level of deviation, then the number of participants assigned to review it during the next evaluation phase will be higher than the standard number.  In either case, the total number of evaluations made per participant will be equal to the number of directives evaluated per phase as established by the initiator of the exchange.

   

► Each participant also has the option to add helpful commentary along with their scoring, which will be viewable (anonymously, of course) to the submitter of the directive reviewed and the end of the evaluation phase.  Conversely, the participant can submit as to whether it was useful or not (Help:  Yes, No)

FYI:  Part of the sorting mechanism for the transmission of directives during subsequent phases of evaluation will be determined by whether commentary was sent by a participant and whether the submitter found it useful or not.

   

► At the end of each phase, the ions accumulated by each participant is added up.

Some possible additions:  (A) Each participant will then be shown their directive's rank relative to the directives that they themselves just evaluated. (B) Between phases, each participant gets to see their rank in terms of the quartile (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) in which they are in relation to the population of participants within the exchange.

 

► Initiators are also enabled with the facility to broadcast messages to all of their participants, even during evaluation.  Because of this, participants are allowed to send questions to the Initiator.

 

► If it is perceived by three or more participants that a directive violates the Communication Ethics Policy (CEP) established by the initiator, then the directive is rejected from the exchange at the end of that phase of evaluation.  The participant will be then be notified that their directive is being evaluated by a randomly selected group of volunteers equal to (3 x number of violation reports) called observers.  They will then review the directive in question, as well as the exchange's objective, to determine whether it can be identified as a violation (see “Policy Enforcement via Participation”).  If not, then half of all the ions received from the exchange by those who claimed that the directive in question was in violation shall be transferred to the participant falsely accused.  If they determine that the directive was in violation of the CEP, then the violating user shall be given one violation on their record, loose all ions (and commissions) accumulated from the exchange thus far, and placed on notice for the period stated within the CEP.  In the case of the CEP proposed for exchanges operated by ideologi incorporated, if participants collect three violations on their ideologi record within a single month, they shall be banned immediately for participating in all exchanges for one month.  The only exception to this rule is for participation in exchanges that are already in their evaluation process at the moment of ruling for the third offense.

 

► The order in which each sample of directives is listed for evaluation by participants is based on the order in which they were submitted.  If they choose to edit their submission before the beginning of the evaluation process, then the moment the edited directive is submitted will be identified as the actual submission date.  The order of directives will then be adjusted accordingly.

 

► If a participant does not complete evaluating and scoring their allotment of directives within the time allowed in a phase of evaluation, then her own directive is automatically rejected for that phase of evaluation and all of the Ions accumulated by her in that exchange will be eliminated.  Any directives left unevaluated shall be automatically receive the median of scores they received by other participants evaluating their directive during that phase of evaluation.  Then a new phase of evaluation will take place, and so on, until the last phase of evaluation has been completed.

 

► Once evaluation is complete and the escrow period has passed, then all transactions related to the exchange will take place:

1. The ions accumulated from each participant will be transferred to their accounts.

2.  Based on the commission structure of the exchange, all commissions will be transferred into the financial accounts of each participant based on their Ion accumulation.

3. The outcomes of the exchange will be published and made available through ideologi's archives (based on the privacy parameters established by the initiator and/or her participants).