The Do Good Gauge describes a collaborative process for solving problems.  

Developing the tool to facilitate collaborative problem solving is secondary to recruiting participation. If a best selling book is to be developed or this idea is to become reality the ownership, credit, and profits will go to the collaborative group who make it possible.

Everyone brings an agenda to the table. Agendas provide an inner motivation. All to often collaboration is lost from the inability to see the commonality in other's agendas. Commonality is accomplished when the perspective is broadend. Examining other perspectives identifies the commonality to share resources and provide alternatives for more effecient solutions.

One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient. Geometry cannot be true, it can only be advantageous. -- Robert Pirsig

An argument is not a sound bite, it is not a novel either. Editorial pages, magazine articles, proposals, scholastic theses, intelligent radio and television programs provide frameworks for expressing arguments. The Do Good Gauge will define an argument as an essay between 500 and 5000 words. Argument can be developed by an individual or through a group collaboration.

The argument development process is iterative. The DGG will provides a framework allowing authors to improve their argument as lessons are learned. This iterative process reduces new argument submittals do to poor voting trends. On many five star voting systems, arguments lacking initial appeal quickly fade into the darkness without receiving votes. Argument iteration provides second chance visibility through a process of refinement and publication.

Argument Coaching

The passion to get a point across can lead an argument down an irrational path. The author of such an argument can be blinded by his or her emotion. The Do Good Gauge will provide tools for a reader to suggest fallacies and other faux pas within an argument. The reader focus in the DGG is on the argument. A reader can provide coaching advice to an author, this advice is visible to the adviser and the author only. A reader will be able to query all the prior advice he or she has provided. An author can query all advice provided to their arguments. Those who have enrolled and attended an American college or university has likely taken Composition 101. Instrumental to this course is the draft. First drafts are red lined by the professor or teaching assistant. Students who submit their first draft as the final draft typically receive a poor score. Quality and a higher grade is received by addressing the objective comments of the peer review. This formula differs from the criticality of the typical blog response. It also differs from the debate process where the goal is to win. The Do Good Gauge will attempt to duplicate this respectful formula of nurturing self improvement.

You seem to have a technical solution to what I might call "dysfunctional divergence" of thought. Blogs encourage divergence, perhaps to the point of dysfunction. Wikis encourage convergence, else edit wars produce dysfunction. There is surely opportunity to invent in the middle ground. -- Ward Cunningham in reference to the Do Good Gauge.

Dysfunctional Divergence

Criticism is an attribute of an argument, not a focal point. Your father may have described it is as, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem", while your older brother stated it as, "Do it or get off the pot". The media has perfected a method of political discourse which criticizes but provides no alternative. Solutionless criticism will be pruned or have limited visibility in the Do Good Gauge. Criticism can be provided as a private suggestion to the author, but it is the author's prerogative to address the criticism within his or her argument. Phrased as a solution, criticism will be given equal billing. Status quo is an acceptable argument, when stated as a solution.

Argument Convergence

Too many arguments in the same direction clutter the network space. To promote clarity and quality authors of similar arguments can join forces. Divergence is typical when the direction approaches opposition or the clarity is opaque. Convergence occurs when individuals share similar desires and beliefs. Though Do Good Gauge respects individuality, the potential for unfettered collaboration is too powerful to ignore.

It is the lone worker who makes the first advance in a subject; the details may be worked out by a team, but the prime idea is due to enterprise, thought, and perception of an individual. -- Dr. Alexander Fleming (discoverer of Penicillin as an antibiotic)

The Do Good Gauge promotes the idea of the author having a say in the security. A repeated requirement is owned by an individual or like thinking group. An argument is subjective. Facts are used as a tool of persuasion. Though an argument may be poor, the author has a point of view to express. The intention of an unmoderated change may be good, but more than likely will steer the argument in a direction differing from the authors motive.

In the Do Good Gauge, argument coaching tools will allow a reader to suggest change, but it should be the author's prerogative to implement the change.

The Do Good Gauge will provide the author with several security models. If an author chooses, a wiki wiki type model will allow the public to grow the argument. The suggested model will allow the author to manage who changes the content of an argument.

Allowing the owner to control the editability promotes a higher potential for argument convergence.

Scoring

The appealing scoring system of the Do Good Gauge allows the reader to rate individual arguments on a five point scale, from good to bad. At the end of each argument the reader will relate similarities in arguments on a five point scale where one extreme represents highly related and supporting views, the other extreme describes highly related but opposing views, and the center represents non related arguments.

Fallacy Identification and Fact Check

Fact check or fallacy identification provides feedback as a manner of truth not opinion. These tools allows a reader to participate in the public sphere in a manner which promotes convergent behavior.

Refinement and measurement are an instrumental concepts to the Do Good Gauge. Submitters of a fallacy identification or fact check will be able to refine their comments. Other readers will be able to identify the validity and respect of the f.i.f.c comment. An equation of the value of these f.i.f.c's will factor into the overall score of an argument. As part of the argument change management system an argument author can flag when an f.i.f.c is addressed. This flag will notify the f.i.f.c. submitters to reexamine the argument and to adjust or remove the f.i.f.c. Failure to respond to this notification will result in an automated removal of the f.i.f.c.

Argument Coaching

Readers can submit coaching advice to an author. This advice will remain private to prevent dysfunctional divergence. It will be the authors peragaotive to implement the suggestion in the argument. The reader will be able to query his or her prior coaching advice. An author will be able to query all advice provided to him or her.

Addition to the Argument Pool

The Do Good Gauge provides a more democratic method of being heard. Readers can become argument authors. Visibility is determined by several factors of which voting trends is most prevelant. Individuals within an authors social group or locale are most likely to push your argument to a higher level. Argument appreciation is most likely based on respect and clarity in a point of view. Feedback, coaching, and iteration are formulas to higher visibility.

Competition provides the motive to perform above the norm. The DGG theorizes the best argument of an average individual is better than the average argument of the best op-ed journalist. This theory provides a competitive motivation for developing a public sphere.

Arguments can be submitted by individuals or by teams. The Do Good Gauge provides a more intriguing framework for competition than a debate club. The geodesic nature of the DGG provides a more complex system requiring a higher level of strategy. The internet nature of the system is suited for longer durations of competition such as a university semester or a business quarter.

Activity and communication are the life blood of an argument. In a vacuum an argument will cease to exist. The Do Good Gauge will provide an active communication process to motivate the development of intelligent arguments.

Though history has a tendency to repeat itself, ideas can shape the course of history. Collaborative efforts such as the space race of the 60's and the Manhattan Project of WWII are examples of how the course of history was collaboratively altered. The Do Good Gauge will provide a collaborative forum to motivate and foster the development of intelligent argument.