[top-politics] FA/DP - some questions & comments

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-30 21:14:11+0100

> >>mG: -And it it here you don’t have any proof of superiority over letting > > the people decide for themselves.

> >-M: People themselves prove the superiority of others by selecting > others. This is people deciding for themselves. > DD already selects others too, but arbitrarily limits this process to > directness. By contrast, PageRank/SD2/SD2-S selects people by an unlimited process.

> -But not all is about selecting a big daddy. If so….I have already > explained.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: Even if AD isn’t legislatively ‘Big Daddy’, ‘Big Daddy’ is still the natural evolution as people look for the top experts. The end result is still ‘Big Daddy’ for both legislation and administration. So the only major difference between AD and SD2-S is still the c-algorithm -
SD2-S is peer-endorsement and AD is arbitrary and lemmingist.

> >>mG: The idea of need for filtering away the Lemmings from the process are > > still challenged as BS by me and others util you have bette evidence. > > >-M: Not evidence – logic – the lack of arbitrariness. > > -Fine, I know that your standpoint is this arbitrar. The lack of logic > is obvious to all.

-M: At what point?

For government, other people are needed.
Because of this, other people need to be selected.
If others can select others, then these selectees should also be able to select others.

At what step should the depth of this selection process be stopped? PageRank/SD2/SD2-S have the unlimited depth of augmented democracy. Where has my logic been challenged?
Lomax dodged this one.

> >> With SD2 this is not guaranteed since the enlightened peers can do > > things non-TOP away from the eyes for the people. > > >-M: This may be useful for national security. > I like TOP, but some administration should be secret.

>mG: -Just minimum. All heads of defence, police etc has to be elected with > immediate recall.

-M: OK.

>mG: And their inscructions have to be open and democratically decided upon.

-M: Internal policy? Maybe. Everyday orders? That would be a bitch and quite involved.

>mG: When it comes to foreign politics, open diplomacy should be the rule, > so no need for secrecy there.

-M: Allied countries should be allowed to plot against enemy countries. This requires secrecy.

> >>mG: -What if your conclusions is wrong? And people just dont bother anymore > > to tell you that? > > >-M: If I am wrong, people should tell me. > I have been at this for 1.5 years, and I do think that I am right. > > -So I’m the only one saying that you are wrong?? I dont find it so.

-M: So? What if everyone said that I was wrong? I could still be right.

> >-M: I prefer calling you a ‘Lemmingist’ instead of a ‘lemming’.

>mG: -Still an insult, aimed to lower my credability.

-M: I think that your positions are Lemmingist. I like you and have no interest in attacking your credibility.

> >>mG: -But some things are best decided by yourself. > > >-M: Yes, but how is this ‘yourself’ to be measured? > I want a better algorithm than simply direct counting with majority > thresholds. > > -Doink! By the AD-algo! Only proposals with enough quality will be > bothering the voters and those who want can delegate.

-M: So, like Emmanuel’s V-V-V, and Rodriguez’s DDD, the voter gets the choice of RD OR DD.
I keep asking why the fuck’n override? (I ask you, Emmanuel and Rodriguez and I get DODGING.) By contrast, SD2-S gives the option of RD and/or DD. And even if the individual voter gives a DD input,
there is still an underlying RD component because people have to be selected anyway,
atleast for administration.
Again, this aligns with SD2-S’s philosophy of minimizing external complexity.

> >>mG: How will the average citizen be able to judge when, if big daddy tends > > to control and steer everything, just as today? > > >-M: Big Daddy would have more control over an AD system than a > TOP-SD2-S because the lemmings in the AD system would be more dupable > and influential. > > -Why?

-M: Because people are selected with the lemming-algorithm instead of a deep peer-selection algorithm like SD2.

> >-M: Even with AD, there is still the media manipulating the minds of > the masses. > With SD2-S, the peer structure would counter faulty popular opinion.

>mG: -What is faulty opinion?? I dont see the difference except that with > SD2, people and lobbyists would concentrate to try to convince big > daddy about things instead of building opinion among neighbours and the > rest of the population, gving an open debate. > A system error frankly, to via reps when the people should rule. Which > is leading to corruption already today.

-M: At what point in SD2-S are people separated from the process? Look at the generative chains. Where?

> >>mG: -Yes I am! Because AD minimizes the risk whereas SD2 amplifies it. > > >-M: No – AD is more dangerous because the leaders can be selected by > popularity, instead of by statecraft expertese.

>mG: -This is not the issue here. I have said many times that I’m not > against the selection of reps (if needed) by the SD2 algo.

-M: You don’t have SD2-S as the umbrella. This is the problem.

> You are trying to win with open doors and hide the fact that SD2 as > only system, actually amplifies todays problems compared to AD.

-M: Again, at what point in my process is there a breakdown?

> >-M: Lower decisionmaking is an administrative nessescity. > I don’t know what you have in mind here.

>mG: -Just as todays politicians, you are mixing administration tasks with > decicion making tasks. On lower levels, there should and can be only administration, > controlled by decisions made by higher levels, in AD case, the people. > In SD2 case, statecraft expertise, ready to be corrupted.

-M: SD2-S’s anti-corruption methods are:

real-time voting
commiteed peer review
and built in juxtoposition of: -a. specialist opinion -b. generalist opinion -c. popular opinion This is SD2-S’s TRIAD.

Your AD has this potential,
but its not built-in.

> >> >-M: SD2-S is about choosing the best people for the job. > > Nothing new here. > >mG: -And again you avoid to answer the key issue, SD2 will also lead as > > much as possible into decions by big daddy, since big daddy will sit in > > the top.

> -M: Big Daddy always sits at the top, even in DD systems. > Again, no comparison.

>mG: -Is he? Where in the AD system? And how can an SD2 big daddy be > comparable?

-M: With AD, he is the top delegates and the top administrators. They would team-up.

> >>mG: SD2 have mechanism to deliberate you say, but the key problem > > is that it is up to bigdaddy to decide (together with his group > > thinkers). > >-M: DD has group thinkers and Big Daddy too. > Again, no comparison.

>mG: -No…dont try give me yor headakes. A groupthinking group in AD will > be ignored since the rest of society will go around it or a corrupt big > daddy.

-M: AD is closer to popular opinion – this is group thinking. By contrast, SD2-S has a TRIAD.

>mG: In SD2 there is no clear way of cleaning out group thinkers if they all > cooperate in the top just switching top ranks with each other. > Which is abig risk that you have not adressed fully. > So I make a very important comparison.

-M: If you understood PageRank, you would know that endoresement circles are not possible without broad support.
Either study PageRank, or accept Emmanuel’s, Rodriguez’s, Markus’s and my knowledge of it.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Magnus — 2006-11-30 11:57:48+0100

>>mG: -And it it here you don’t have any proof of superiority over letting > the people decide for themselves.

>-M: People themselves prove the superiority of others by selecting others.
This is people deciding for themselves. DD already selects others too, but arbitrarily limits this process to directness.
By contrast, PageRank/SD2/SD2-S selects people by an unlimited process.

-But not all is about selecting a big daddy. If so….I have already explained.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>>mG: The idea of need for filtering away the Lemmings from the process are > still challenged as BS by me and others util you have bette evidence.

>-M: Not evidence – logic – the lack of arbitrariness.

-Fine, I know that your standpoint is this arbitrar. The lack of logic is obvious to all.

>> With SD2 this is not guaranteed since the enlightened peers can do > things non-TOP away from the eyes for the people.

>-M: This may be useful for national security. I like TOP, but some administration should be secret.

-Just minimum. All heads of defence, police etc has to be elected with immediate recall.
And their inscructions have to be open and democratically decided upon. When it comes to foreign politics, open diplomacy should be the rule, so no need for secrecy there.

>>mG: -What if your conclusions is wrong? And people just dont bother anymore > to tell you that?

>-M: If I am wrong, people should tell me. I have been at this for 1.5 years, and I do think that I am right.

-So I’m the only one saying that you are wrong?? I dont find it so.

>-M: I prefer calling you a ‘Lemmingist’ instead of a ‘lemming’.

-Still an insult, aimed to lower my credability.

>>mG: -But some things are best decided by yourself.

>-M: Yes, but how is this ‘yourself’ to be measured? I want a better algorithm than simply direct counting with majority thresholds.

-Doink! By the AD-algo! Only proposals with enough quality will be bothering the voters and those who want can delegate.

>>mG: How will the average citizen be able to judge when, if big daddy tends > to control and steer everything, just as today?

>-M: Big Daddy would have more control over an AD system than a TOP-SD2-S because the lemmings in the AD system would be more dupable and influential.

-Why?

>-M: Even with AD, there is still the media manipulating the minds of the masses.
With SD2-S, the peer structure would counter faulty popular opinion.

-What is faulty opinion?? I dont see the difference except that with SD2, people and lobbyists would concentrate to try to convince big daddy about things instead of building opinion among neighbours and the rest of the population, gving an open debate.
A system error frankly, to via reps when the people should rule. Which is leading to corruption already today.

>>mG: -Yes I am! Because AD minimizes the risk whereas SD2 amplifies it.

>-M: No – AD is more dangerous because the leaders can be selected by popularity, instead of by statecraft expertese.

-This is not the issue here. I have said many times that I’m not against the selection of reps (if needed) by the SD2 algo. You are trying to win with open doors and hide the fact that SD2 as only system, actually amplifies todays problems compared to AD.

>-M: Lower decisionmaking is an administrative nessescity. I don’t know what you have in mind here.

-Just as todays politicians, you are mixing administration tasks with decicion making tasks.
On lower levels, there should and can be only administration, controlled by decisions made by higher levels, in AD case, the people. In SD2 case, statecraft expertise, ready to be corrupted.

>> >-M: SD2-S is about choosing the best people for the job. > Nothing new here. >mG: -And again you avoid to answer the key issue, SD2 will also lead as > much as possible into decions by big daddy, since big daddy will sit in > the top.

-M: Big Daddy always sits at the top, even in DD systems. Again, no comparison.

-Is he? Where in the AD system? And how can an SD2 big daddy be comparable?

>>mG: SD2 have mechanism to deliberate you say, but the key problem > is that it is up to bigdaddy to decide (together with his group > thinkers).

>-M: DD has group thinkers and Big Daddy too. Again, no comparison.

-No…dont try give me yor headakes. A groupthinking group in AD will be ignored since the rest of society will go around it or a corrupt big daddy.
In SD2 there is no clear way of cleaning out group thinkers if they all cooperate in the top just switching top ranks with each other. Which is abig risk that you have not adressed fully. So I make a very important comparison.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-29 22:49:08+0100

MG wrote:

> >-M: Because the augmented democratic process of PageRank/SD2/SD2-S > filters away the lemmings. This is based on the idea that people generally select those that are more qualified than themselves. So extend this principle as deep as > possible into a trust network to find the convergence of qualification.

>mG: -And it it here you don’t have any proof of superiority over letting > the people decide for themselves.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: People themselves prove the superiority of others by selecting others.
This is people deciding for themselves. DD already selects others too, but arbitrarily limits this process to directness.
By contrast, PageRank/SD2/SD2-S selects people by an unlimited process.

>mG: The idea of need for filtering away the Lemmings from the process are > still challenged as BS by me and others util you have bette evidence.

-M: Not evidence – logic – the lack of arbitrariness.

>mG: In AD they (if any existent) are in the process, but only the acts > taken by lemmings will be filterd away by the sorting on accumulated > support, making the decision making progressive only where adeqaute > arguments and debate is made. > With SD2 this is not guaranteed since the enlightened peers can do > things non-TOP away from the eyes for the people.

-M: This may be useful for national security. I like TOP, but some administration should be secret.

>mG: You say that such leaders will loose rank, but this is not guaranteed > if there is group thinking, which is much likely, just as today.

> >>> >>mG: Let’s leave that to others,… > > >> >-M: Why? I want to have the honor and burden of being right. > > >>mG: -Well, see a reason? > > >-M: Yes, I want a republican algorithmic system that selects the most > qualified to lead.

>mG: -What if your conclusions is wrong? And people just dont bother anymore > to tell you that?

-M: If I am wrong, people should tell me. I have been at this for 1.5 years, and I do think that I am right.

> >>>mG: -Another logical error of yours. And I dont like to be called Lemming every now and then. Fuck you! > > >-M: Where did this come from? > Did I insult you? > I was only asking a question. > Please reread it and request clarification if necissary.

> – well, Mark:> -M: Top scientists were more peer-selected than church > selected. SD2-S has peer-selection, which is what you want, but you fuck-up by > > using the lemming-algorithm instead of a peer-selection algorithm.

-M: I prefer calling you a ‘Lemmingist’ instead of a ‘lemming’.

> >> -You want citizens to choose reps without knowing the facts inside all > > known information for the issues?

> >-M: I just think that they tend to know those more qualified than > themselves. This is all that is needed for augmented democracy to snowball > properly. And I do want them to be informed so as to know who and what to select.

>mG: -But some things are best decided by yourself.

-M: Yes, but how is this ‘yourself’ to be measured? I want a better algorithm than simply direct counting with majority thresholds.

>mG: How will the average citizen be able to judge when, if big daddy tends > to control and steer everything, just as today?

-M: Big Daddy would have more control over an AD system than a TOP-SD2-S because the lemmings in the AD system would be more dupable and influential.

>mG: TOP applicated to SD2 would help, but you have failed to proof if > enough or not.

-M: Even with AD, there is still the media manipulating the minds of the masses.
With SD2-S, the peer structure would counter faulty popular opinion.

> >>mG:-Yes I have, you are stealing my argument: Selecting the wrong guy due > > to lemminghood is a larger problem than selecting the wrong alternative > > in a specific issue. Read Socrates. > > >-M: Selecting the wrong guy is still a danger with DD because > top-administrators are still needed – again, you aren’t making a > comparison. > >mG: -Yes I am! Because AD minimizes the risk whereas SD2 amplifies it.

-M: No – AD is more dangerous because the leaders can be selected by popularity, instead of by statecraft expertese.

> >>mG: And even if SD2 helps to sort out the worst fuck-heads, the risk is > > still there because no single person is perfect to use for all > > decicions.

> >-M: You are now attacking emergency-mode SD2 instead of attacking > SD2-S. Please refocus.

>mG: -I’m not because, even if there are several lower decisionmakers, they > can not be as diversified as the single citizen. > This is why your keep your own key to your appartment and car etc. Your > bank accounts, mail etc is (hopefully) controlled by you and no big > daddy.

-M: Lower decisionmaking is an administrative nessescity. I don’t know what you have in mind here.

> >>mG: Some are made best by your own which you have not challenged. > > And if this is the case, you have no proof of that reps will ever do > > the best job, once all info is on the table in a specific issue. > > >-M: SD2-S is about choosing the best people for the job. > Nothing new here.

>mG: -And again you avoid to answer the key issue, SD2 will also lead as > much as possible into decions by big daddy, since big daddy will sit in > the top.

-M: Big Daddy always sits at the top, even in DD systems. Again, no comparison.

>mG: SD2 have mechanism to deliberate you say, but the key problem > is that it is up to bigdaddy to decide (together with his group > thinkers). -M: DD has group thinkers and Big Daddy too. Again, no comparison.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Magnus — 2006-11-29 11:43:53+0100

>-M: Because the augmented democratic process of PageRank/SD2/SD2-S filters away the lemmings.
This is based on the idea that people generally select those that are more qualified than themselves. So extend this principle as deep as possible into a trust network to find the convergence of qualification.

-And it it here you don’t have any proof of superiority over letting the people decide for themselves.
The idea of need for filtering away the Lemmings from the process are still challenged as BS by me and others util you have bette evidence. In AD they (if any existent) are in the process, but only the acts taken by lemmings will be filterd away by the sorting on accumulated support, making the decision making progressive only where adeqaute arguments and debate is made.
With SD2 this is not guaranteed since the enlightened peers can do things non-TOP away from the eyes for the people.
You say that such leaders will loose rank, but this is not guaranteed if there is group thinking, which is much likely, just as today.

>>> >>mG: Let’s leave that to others,…

Read more… / Lire plus…

>> >-M: Why? I want to have the honor and burden of being right.

>>mG: -Well, see a reason?

>-M: Yes, I want a republican algorithmic system that selects the most qualified to lead.

-What if your conclusions is wrong? And people just dont bother anymore to tell you that?

>>>mG: -Another logical error of yours. And I dont like to be called Lemming every now and then. Fuck you!

>-M: Where did this come from? Did I insult you?
I was only asking a question.
Please reread it and request clarification if necissary.

well, Mark:> -M: Top scientists were more peer-selected than church selected. > SD2-S has peer-selection, which is what you want, but you fuck-up by > using the lemming-algorithm instead of a peer-selection algorithm.

>> -You want citizens to choose reps without knowing the facts inside all > known information for the issues?

>-M: I just think that they tend to know those more qualified than themselves.
This is all that is needed for augmented democracy to snowball properly.
And I do want them to be informed so as to know who and what to select.

-But some things are best decided by yourself. How will the average citizen be able to judge when, if big daddy tends to control and steer everything, just as today?
TOP applicated to SD2 would help, but you have failed to proof if enough or not.

>>mG:-Yes I have, you are stealing my argument: Selecting the wrong guy due > to lemminghood is a larger problem than selecting the wrong alternative > in a specific issue. Read Socrates.

>-M: Selecting the wrong guy is still a danger with DD because top-administrators are still needed – again, you aren’t making a comparison.

-Yes I am! Because AD minimizes the risk whereas SD2 amplifies it.

>>mG: And even if SD2 helps to sort out the worst fuck-heads, the risk is > still there because no single person is perfect to use for all > decicions.

>-M: You are now attacking emergency-mode SD2 instead of attacking SD2-S.
Please refocus.

-I’m not because, even if there are several lower decisionmakers, they can not be as diversified as the single citizen.
This is why your keep your own key to your appartment and car etc. Your bank accounts, mail etc is (hopefully) controlled by you and no big daddy.

>>mG: Some are made best by your own which you have not challenged. > And if this is the case, you have no proof of that reps will ever do > the best job, once all info is on the table in a specific issue.

>-M: SD2-S is about choosing the best people for the job. Nothing new here.

-And again you avoid to answer the key issue, SD2 will also lead as much as possible into decions by big daddy, since big daddy will sit in the top. SD2 have mechanism to deliberate you say, but the key problem is that it is up to bigdaddy to decide (together with his group thinkers).
Definately nothing new here, I agree.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-28 22:50:03+0100

> >-M: As I said, the problem with L-RD is that it is Lemming-RD and not > SD2. DD uses the same algorithm as L-RD. > I have sais this over and over, and you have not challenged this. > By the rule structures of debate, I am ahead of you.

>mG: BS, I can challenge it again: > L-RD might have the same principle, 50% +1, as AD. > But the algo is excerised by a better hardware, with less arbitar > influence. And as far as I understand your enlightened peers will also use the > same c-algo, 50% +1 once they have to decide something wich is their > only task.

-M: Yes, selected peers would probably use 50%+1 among themselves with SD2.
This is better than the above because they are selected peers. SD2-S uses a decision threshold of specialists – default 60%.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>mG: So why is SD2 better than AD when it comes to algos?

-M: Because the augmented democratic process of PageRank/SD2/SD2-S filters away the lemmings.
This is based on the idea that people generally select those that are more qualified than themselves. So extend this principle as deep as possible into a trust network to find the convergence of qualification.

> >>mG: Let’s leave that to others,… > > >-M: Why? I want to have the honor and burden of being right. > >mG: -Well, see a reason?

-M: Yes, I want a republican algorithmic system that selects the most qualified to lead.

> >>mG: Being right with wrong conclusions is not worth so much. > > >-M: How can someone be right with the wrong conclusions?

>mG: -Another logical error of yours. And I dont like to be called Lemming every now and then. Fuck you!

-M: Where did this come from? Did I insult you?
I was only asking a question.
Please reread it and request clarification if necissary.

> >-M: I asked about unfairness toward those I am communicating with. > You now seem to be discussing my position on Lemmingism.

>mG: Your only point basicly is that SD2 is best because there is no > lemminghood built into it. This is unfair and BS.

-M: The augmented democratic process filters away lemming opinion.

> >OK, mostly true. Lets tighten it up a bit: > Most problems I can think of are because of lemminghood and > corruption. Looks good to me. Where has this been challenged? > You seem to be of the opinion that people will make the correct > decisions when presented with information. The problem is this is just > information, and it largely is unprocessed into meaning for the non-specialist. > > -You want citizens to choose reps without knowing the facts inside all > known information for the issues?

-M: I just think that they tend to know those more qualified than themselves.
This is all that is needed for augmented democracy to snowball properly.
And I do want them to be informed so as to know who and what to select.

> >So then WHO are the trustworthy specialists? > Without an anti-corruption mechanism, > the lemmings can be duped into selecting a fuck-head. :-( > This is why SD2-S selects people hierarchicly based on their > trustworthiness. This deselects the dupes and fuck-heads. > Gotta better idea?

>mG:-Yes I have, you are stealing my argument: Selecting the wrong guy due > to lemminghood is a larger problem than selecting the wrong alternative > in a specific issue. Read Socrates.

-M: Selecting the wrong guy is still a danger with DD because top-administrators are still needed – again, you aren’t making a comparison.

>mG: And even if SD2 helps to sort out the worst fuck-heads, the risk is > still there because no single person is perfect to use for all > decicions.

-M: You are now attacking emergency-mode SD2 instead of attacking SD2-S.
Please refocus.

>mG: Some are made best by your own which you have not challenged. > And if this is the case, you have no proof of that reps will ever do > the best job, once all info is on the table in a specific issue.

-M: SD2-S is about choosing the best people for the job. Nothing new here.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Magnus — 2006-11-27 12:46:23+0100

>-M: As I said, the problem with L-RD is that it is Lemming-RD and not SD2.
DD uses the same algorithm as L-RD.
I have sais this over and over, and you have not challenged this. By the rule structures of debate, I am ahead of you.

-BS, I can challenge it again: L-RD might have the same principle, 50% +1, as AD.
But the algo is excerised by a better hardware, with less arbitar influence.
And as far as I understand your enlightened peers will also use the same c-algo, 50% +1 once they have to decide something wich is their only task.
So why is SD2 better than AD when it comes to algos?

>>mG: Let’s leave that to others,…

>-M: Why? I want to have the honor and burden of being right.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-Well, see a reason?

>>mG: Being right with wrong conclusions is not worth so much.

>-M: How can someone be right with the wrong conclusions?

-Another logical error of yours. And I dont like to be called Lemming every now and then. Fuck you!

>-M: I asked about unfairness toward those I am communicating with. You now seem to be discussing my position on Lemmingism.

-Your only point basicly is that SD2 is best because there is no lemminghood built into it.
This is unfair and BS.

>OK, mostly true. Lets tighten it up a bit: Most problems I can think of are because of lemminghood and corruption.

Looks good to me. Where has this been challenged?
You seem to be of the opinion that people will make the correct decisions when presented with information. The problem is this is just information, and it largely is unprocessed into meaning for the non-specialist.

-You want citizens to choose reps without knowing the facts inside all known information for the issues?
And you don’t call that Lemminghood?
Where is the logic?

>So then WHO are the trustworthy specialists? Without an anti-corruption mechanism,
the lemmings can be duped into selecting a fuck-head. :-( This is why SD2-S selects people hierarchicly based on their trustworthiness.
This deselects the dupes and fuck-heads.
Gotta better idea?

-Yes I have, you are stealing my argument: Selecting the wrong guy due to lemminghood is a larger problem than selecting the wrong alternative in a specific issue. Read Socrates.
And even if SD2 helps to sort out the worst fuck-heads, the risk is still there because no single person is perfect to use for all decicions.
Some are made best by your own which you have not challenged. And if this is the case, you have no proof of that reps will ever do the best job, once all info is on the table in a specific issue.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Magnus — 2006-11-27 12:28:06+0100

>>mG: -Huh? Tell me one and answer the one above!

>-M: I don’t quite remember, but I do think that I responded to you.

-It’s all in the forum. I can still not see any answer on the last question,

>-M: You are one of the more responsive ones, but you still have dodged.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-You mean: not agreed on what you say is logic. I have no problem with that since I have showed you several times that not all from you is logical.

>-M: Let there be issues – it is people’s response to these issues that is the way to evaluate peers. And I understand that there are more than

issues.
You seem to be for issues only while I am for issues and people.

-No, it is you who wants to make issues> issues + leaders. This is the great error of your logic. And doing so takes focus from the issues which are all corrupt leaders best tool. A structured way of working with issues which eliminates the arbitrary bias that always comes with personal aspects will lift the worst burden mankind ever had. Your logic is: issues + leaders is better than issues + leaders. Prooven wrong by history because leaders by RD is tested now for several hundreds years with known results.
Mine is: Issues + leaders can be worse than issues. And mine is not prooven wrong by history.

>> The value to mankind is that the faulty scientist can be questioned and > his conclusions too, nomatter what rank he has or will have tomorrow.

>-M: Fine – this is why SD2-S has open participation.

-Dont try to leave the discussion easy, The parallell was that the scientific world is a better way of working with issues than the election of reps.doring the same job. Participation is not the same as being on the same level. Participating citizen can always be ignored, the examples are many. You are self advocating numerous ways of filtering the words of public by the top ranked. (Because the will not stand the words of the lemmings)

>>mG: Do you call that a logic answer, supporting your ideas? I rest my > case.

-M: Where was your attack on my ideas? SD2-S is open, so that anyone can challenge ranked specialists.

-Only if he is interested in gaining rank. Many are not. They are just interested in one isse at the time. Which speaks for issues rather than individuals.

>>mG: You agree on that specialists can decend to goup thinking, but > generalists?

>-M: I’d say that ranked generalists would be the least group-thought prone.

-Maybe so but still a big problem, not adressed by SD2.

>>mG: Welcome to the politacal world! Today folked [fucked?]by generalist all over the > place, not doing much more than group thinking! This is the key problem with raising up individuals over arguments,…

>-M: Doink! Its not individuals vs arguments, its individuals-and-arguments vs. arguments.

-Still an unlogical answer, the problem is group thinking, coming from personal pleasure of beeing part of a group.

>-M: SD2-S uses people as the quality filters - this requires them to be ranked.

-And people (including reps) are arbitray. Wrong things can be filtered by arbitrary reasons against an individual or because of individual arbitrary reasons by the rep. AD adressed this. SD2 not. The bottom line is really: What is worst, that single issues gets arbitrary filtered away due to mass-phycoses or whatever you might refer to as lemminghood among the citizens, or, that whole areas or many ideas gets filtered away by a rep. just because they come from wrong originator or some personal causes never made public?

>-M: You want software without the hardware. :-(

-Yes, if the hardware is broken or corrupt and can be bypassed.

>-M: The measure of people’s positions on these issues - AD uses the lemming-algorithm.
By contrast, when SD2-S measures of people’s positions on issues, PageRank is used, which gives accumulative voting toward expert opinion.
This is quality filtering.

-You mean that selecting reps having certain positions in a debate is quality filtering? I call it hardware quality filtering without all facts known for the hardware.

>-M: C-algorithms are the ONLY way to measure peoples positions on issues.
This is why I made the c-algorithm the main focus since day one.

-It is time to go to the bottom with this. What do you mean centrality-algo?
Why is SD2 an C-algo and AD not?

>> By contrast, PageRank is a peer-review algorithm. >mG: -Mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean?

>-M: It has accumulative voting toward expert opinion.

-I’d call it accumulative voting toward experts. How their opinion is excercised is a different story.
AD is accumulative voting towards best solution as a whole for each single issue. Less unknown parameters.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 00:42:27+0100

[…] > By contrast, PageRank is a peer-review algorithm.

>mG: -Mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean?

-M: It finds expert opinion by following endorsement chains to the convergence of expertese.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> >> >-M: With SD2-S, its always collaboration. > >mG: -Where is your proof of that?

> -M: It has democratic inputs, with a minimum number of inputs for > decisions.

>mG: Minimum? Why and why is it a guarantee for collaboration for the best > solution?

-M: Its not a guarantee, but it still is collaborative.

>mG: Collaboration , yes, but what if all top-ranked are corrupt and know > each other, conserving their power?

-M: That creates what Brad deGraff calls a ‘circle jerk’. Such a circle still needs broad support to be highly ranked, or else is is just largely ignored by PageRank.

> >> >-M: BS, leaps occured because the “whos” were better selected. > > Again, you make a case for SD2-S. > >mG: Examples?

> -M: Top scientists were more peer-selected than church selected. > SD2-S has peer-selection, which is what you want, but you fuck-up by > using the lemming-algorithm instead of a peer-selection algorithm.

>mG: -Yes but many achievements have been made by non-appointed scientists > starting with almost nothing. Did you ever heard of the chief of the american patent office in the > end of 1800:s? This appointed idiot looked forward to a calm carrer since “everything > is always invented” more or less.

-M: Yes, I have heard of this.

>mG: To use your own words, SD2 selections can fuck up development.

-M: SD2-S is not an appointment based system, so your criticism doesn’t apply.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-24 23:47:26+0100

MG wrote:

> >> Like: Statement from MG: RD leads to Hitler or at least corrupt leadership. > > Marks comment: No! the Lemmings do, not RD. L-RD., Not my RD. > > But DD leads to lemminghood.I have proof of that from the trial of > > Sokrates. Do you call that logic? I have commented on why the trial of Sokrates not can be taken as a proof of Leminghood in relation to DD but you never challenged that.

> >-M: I remember numerous points that you have not responded to.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>mG: -Huh? Tell me one and answer the one above!

-M: I don’t quite remember, but I do think that I responded to you.

>mG: You know perfectly well that I have been very responsive and answered > almost all so called arguments coming from you. If there was a vote on that I’m 100% sure of winning it.

-M: You are one of the more responsive ones, but you still have dodged.

> >-M: I am more responsive than you are. > Look at the response trees. I have more dead-ends than anyone else.

>mG: O my….and my dad has a bigger car than yours,…. > How old are you, Mark?

-M: Old enough to be an American President – 35.

>mG: And how can the only conclusion for your enormous number of dead-ends > be that you won them?

-M: The rule structures of debate. Not meeting the burden of rejoinder is indicative that the other has won.
How else should it work?

>mG: There might be another reason too and I leave it to you to figure out.

-M: The only conclusion is that they fucked-up.

> >-M: How is this legitimacy measured? (in the scientific world) > PageRank of SD2-S is a way.

>mG: The open scientific gives different possibilities to build reputation, > but in the base, there is always facts and well grounded conclusions. > Exact measures och legimitacy is not needed because the focus are on > issues, not individuals like you refuse to understand. > Pagerank is not used the way you want there, bacuse it could draw focus > to indivduals rather than issues in the science.

-M: Let there be issues – it is people’s response to these issues that is the way to evaluate peers. And I understand that there are more than issues.
You seem to be for issues only while I am for issues and people.

> >> Like: today there is 40 deg C outside, says the scientist. A man in the > > street can then go: Are you insane, today we have full winter and -40 > > deg C! Nothing stops this challenge and we know who will win that debate in > > the middle of the winter.

> >-M: Yes, and with SD2-S, such a man on the street is likely to increase > in rank. Again, SD2-S is the system you are seeking.

>mG: Sometimes the man doesn’t care about his rank, he just want to put > things right, quickly. So where is the value of high rank to him? He might be of no interest > of being a scientist or even working with wheater issues. > The value to mankind is that the faulty scientist can be questioned and > his conclusions too, nomatter what rank he has or will have tomorrow.

-M: Fine – this is why SD2-S has open participation.

> >>mG: Of course most of the times things are not so clear but the principle is > > the same anyone having a different opinion can raise it and that works > > as a guarantee from misrule by specialsts using their fine ranks and > > titles.

> >-M: Which is why SD2-S is democratic.

>mG: Do you call that a logic answer, supporting your ideas? I rest my > case.

-M: Where was your attack on my ideas? SD2-S is open, so that anyone can challenge ranked specialists.

> >>mG: You are not adressing the need for fully open debate. > > You wan’t a proxy system giving possibilities for an elite to ignore > > facts. If all of the top ranked ignore the same facts due to group > > thinking or stupidity, there can be stagnation and corruption. > > Seen today.

> >-M: No, those who have the appearance of entrenchment will loose rank. > And yes, specialists can descend into group-think, > which is one reason why SD2-S has generalists to maintain a devil’s > advocacy, and other counter-entrenchment processes.

>mG: You agree on that specialists can decend to goup thinking, but > generalists?

-M: I’d say that ranked generalists would be the least group-thought prone.

>mG: Welcome to the politacal world! Today folked [fucked?]by generalist all over the > place, not doing much more than group thinking! This is the key problem with raising up individuals over arguments,…

-M: Doink! Its not individuals vs arguments, its individuals-and-arguments vs. arguments.

>mG:… this is your problem. And SD2 might help, but not fully, explained by me and others several times.

-M: SD2-S uses people as the quality filters - this requires them to be ranked.

> >-M: Humans are behavior generation systems – and there is nothing in > policy that isn’t implimented by humans. > This is why choosing the best humans for collective action is the > panecea for achieving collective goals.

>mG: -Wrong again, software is what drives the world, not hardware. > Rethink.

-M: You want software without the hardware. :-(

> >> >-M: You are advocating peer-endorsement instead of lemming-endorsement. > > Again you make a case for SD2-S. > >mG: Explain?

> -M: Your L-RD and DD make selections based on popularity. > By contrast, SD2-S uses PageRank, which is a peer-endorsement > algorithm.

>mG: -No, DD makes selections on facts (is the bridge on the best place, how > can we solve this environmental problem etc) even if the can be biased > by emotions, to vote on a person who should solve everything in order > to give him higher rank is definately a popularity action though. > Again, where is your logic?

-M: The measure of people’s positions on these issues - AD uses the lemming-algorithm.
By contrast, when SD2-S measures of people’s positions on issues, PageRank is used, which gives accumulative voting toward expert opinion.
This is quality filtering.

> >-M: Did I ever say that I wanted to close science and statecraft? NO! > Both science and statecraft should have open exchange of ideas, > but for democratic decisionmaking, a c-algorithm is mandated.

> -Why?

-M: C-algorithms are the ONLY way to measure peoples positions on issues.
This is why I made the c-algorithm the main focus since day one.

> >-M: Meaning that populistic voting is exactly that, it is populistic > where the lemmings can be duped with emotional arguments and ones that > pander to ignorance. > This is why the DD and L-RD of your AD is not appropriate for > peer-review. > By contrast, PageRank is a peer-review algorithm.

>mG: -Mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean?

-M: It has accumulative voting toward expert opinion. shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Magnus — 2006-11-24 14:04:37+0100

>> Like: Statement from MG: RD leads to Hitler or at least corrupt leadership. > Marks comment: No! the Lemmings do, not RD. L-RD., Not my RD. > But DD leads to lemminghood.I have proof of that from the trial of > Sokrates. Do you call that logic? I have commented on why the trial of Sokrates not can be taken as a proof of Leminghood in relation to DD but you never challenged that.

>-M: I remember numerous points that you have not responded to.

-Huh? Tell me one and answer the one above! You know perfectly well that I have been very responsive and answered almost all so called arguments coming from you.
If there was a vote on that I’m 100% sure of winning it.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>-M: I am more responsive than you are. Look at the response trees. I have more dead-ends than anyone else.

-O my….and my dad has a bigger car than yours,…. How old are you, Mark?
And how can the only conclusion for your enormous number of dead-ends be that you won them?
There might be another reason too and I leave it to you to figure out.

>-M: How is this legitimacy measured? (in the scientific world) PageRank of SD2-S is a way.

-The open scientific gives different possibilities to build reputation, but in the base, there is always facts and well grounded conclusions. Exact measures och legimitacy is not needed because the focus are on issues, not individuals like you refuse to understand. Pagerank is not used the way you want there, bacuse it could draw focus to indivduals rather than issues in the science.

>> Like: today there is 40 deg C outside, says the scientist. A man in the > street can then go: Are you insane, today we have full winter and -40 > deg C! Nothing stops this challenge and we know who will win that debate in > the middle of the winter.

>-M: Yes, and with SD2-S, such a man on the street is likely to increase in rank.
Again, SD2-S is the system you are seeking.

-Sometimes the man doesn’t care about his rank, he just want to put things right, quickly.
So where is the value of high rank to him? He might be of no interest of being a scientist or even working with wheater issues. The value to mankind is that the faulty scientist can be questioned and his conclusions too, nomatter what rank he has or will have tomorrow.

>>mG: Of course most of the times things are not so clear but the principle is > the same anyone having a different opinion can raise it and that works > as a guarantee from misrule by specialsts using their fine ranks and > titles.

>-M: Which is why SD2-S is democratic.

-Do you call that a logic answer, supporting your ideas? I rest my case.

>>mG: You are not adressing the need for fully open debate. > You wan’t a proxy system giving possibilities for an elite to ignore > facts. If all of the top ranked ignore the same facts due to group > thinking or stupidity, there can be stagnation and corruption. > Seen today.

>-M: No, those who have the appearance of entrenchment will loose rank. And yes, specialists can descend into group-think,
which is one reason why SD2-S has generalists to maintain a devil’s advocacy,
and other counter-entrenchment processes.

-You agree on that specialists can decend to goup thinking, but generalists?
Welcome to the politacal world! Today folked by generalist all over the place, not doing much more than group thinking!
This is the key problem with raising up individuals over arguments, this is your problem.
And SD2 might help, but not fully, explained by me and others several times.

>-M: Humans are behavior generation systems – and there is nothing in policy that isn’t implimented by humans. This is why choosing the best humans for collective action is the panecea for achieving collective goals.

-Wrong again, software is what drives the world, not hardware. Rethink.

>> >-M: You are advocating peer-endorsement instead of lemming-endorsement. > Again you make a case for SD2-S. >mG: Explain?

-M: Your L-RD and DD make selections based on popularity. By contrast, SD2-S uses PageRank, which is a peer-endorsement algorithm.

-No, DD makes selections on facts (is the bridge on the best place, how can we solve this environmental problem etc) even if the can be biased by emotions, to vote on a person who should solve everything in order to give him higher rank is definately a popularity action though. Again, where is your logic?

>-M: Did I ever say that I wanted to close science and statecraft? NO! Both science and statecraft should have open exchange of ideas, but for democratic decisionmaking, a c-algorithm is mandated.

-Why?

>-M: Meaning that populistic voting is exactly that, it is populistic where the lemmings can be duped with emotional arguments and ones that pander to ignorance.
This is why the DD and L-RD of your AD is not appropriate for peer-review.
By contrast, PageRank is a peer-review algorithm.

-Mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean?

>> >-M: With SD2-S, its always collaboration. >mG: -Where is your proof of that?

-M: It has democratic inputs, with a minimum number of inputs for decisions.

-Minimum? Why and why is it a guarantee for collaboration for the best solution?
Collaboration , yes, but what if all top-ranked are corrupt and know each other, conserving their power?

>> >-M: BS, leaps occured because the “whos” were better selected. > Again, you make a case for SD2-S. >mG: Examples?

-M: Top scientists were more peer-selected than church selected. SD2-S has peer-selection, which is what you want, but you fuck-up by using the lemming-algorithm instead of a peer-selection algorithm.

-Yes but many achievements have been made by non-appointed scientists starting with almost nothing.
Did you ever heard of the chief of the american patent office in the end of 1800:s?
This appointed idiot looked forward to a calm carrer since “everything is always invented” more or less.
To use your own words, SD2 selections can fuck up development.

[top-politics] FA/DP - some questions & comments

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.