Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 07/09 14:38 +1 Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
- 07/09 05:08 +1 Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
- 07/09 02:55 +1 Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
- 06/09 23:33 +1 Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
Latest posts
- 07/09 14:38 +1 Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
- 07/09 05:08 +1 Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
- 07/09 02:55 +1 Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
- 06/09 23:33 +1 Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
-
> > > > For now, I want to know about your directional Markov-algorithm > > > > for your V-V-V system. How does it differ from PageRank?
> > Unlimited depth – like PageRank.
>ec: That took you some time!
-M: I already knew that you were attempting to do this, but how would you do this without an input constrained PageRank?
>ec: This is transitive delegations, or delegable proxy.
-M: OK, all the systems that I have been comparing have this. The only exceptions would be some versions of SD2, but my prefered defaults, SD2-S, would be delegable proxy.
> >M: But I notice that it is only one delegate per voter.
>ec: As far as I’m concerned, it’s one delegate per issue and per voter.
-M: The comparison was for the recieved inputs from the individual voter:
V-V-V – voter chooses a delegate OR an issue position SD2-S – voter chooses delegate(s) OR, delegate(s)-AND-issue position.>ec: I don’t see the need for more, but more could be added at the expense of simplicity.
-M: See below.
> > Again, because there is only one, there is no ability to fork around > > dead ends and loops. This creates instabilities and is overly > > centralized compared with having multiple proxies. Well, what is your > > response?
>ec: Loops are not a problem. Everything is public and loops will be public.
-M: Transparency isn’t the issue.
>ec: A loop can be broken at any moment with just one of its participants > directly voting on the related issues.
-M: Understood.
>ec: Not only that but, so what if there are loops?
-M: How are you going to calculate ranks(voting power) without a PageRank type algorithm?(You did criticise me for using PageRank. So my issue here isn’t your intentions, its your implimentation.)
> > > One can change anytime his actions. A direct vote will, of course, > > > override an indirect delegation.
> > ‘of course’ – again, why the override? Why not let the voter decide > > if there is going to be an override or not? Maybe the voter wants both > > a direct vote and more than one delegate. SD2-S allows for this. How is > > your way better?
>ec: Because as you yourself agreed, direct expression is more potent than > indirect one.
-M: What is more ‘potent’(whatever-the-fuck that is supposed to mean), direct expression OR, direct expression-and-indirect expression? By your convoluted logic my way still should be better.
>ec: Even using indirect information, the end result is decision on issues. A > direct expression on issues is more potent than an indirect one. > You agreed on that!… Well, until one paragraph later you totally made > a mess of yourself and changed your mind. That was fun you know, I’m > still giggling at that thought :)
-M: Go ahead and have fun.
> > > Thus, someone participating will have two available actions for each > > > issue: > > > – +1 or -1 (this will certainly evolve in time) > > > – delegate to someone else > > > > SD2-Smartocracy offers: > > 1. general trustees and/or > > 2. issue position and/or > > 3. specific delegates and/or > > 4. decision thresholds and/or > > 5. deliberation thresholds > > > > The only two that are mutually exclusive are #1 and #3. > > This yields about 20 different combination possibilities for the voter. > > How is your way better?
>ec: Simplicity is better than unneeded complexity.
-M: I give the option for simplicity. With SD2-S the voter gets to choose how simple or complex his/her ballot will be.
I give choice that you don’t give.>ec: A general “trustee” is simply a delegate on a top issue (thus 1 == 3). > Decision and deliberation thresholds are just normal issues (thus 4 and > 5 are unneeded).
-M: OK, this is interesting. This also appears to be a more complex than SD2-S.
And I don’t see it contradicting SD2-S, because there can be two different kind of trustees, administrative-generalists(selected by SD2-S)and ideological-generalists(selected by V-V-V.)>ec: It’s almost fun talking to you tonight :)
-M: Likewise. :-)
> > > Some differences: > > > – no rank or other such silly concepts > > > > Delegates all have differing voting power relative to one another. > > This is rank whether it is called ‘rank’ or not. (I have said this > > before, and this is an uncontested point of mine.)
>ec: There will of course be differences in power between individuals, but > this is not used to determine such awfully stupid and unneeded things as > “directors”. I don’t care about ranks.
-M: You may not care, but administrative nessecities require ranks.
> > > – direct expression override indirect one
> > Why? If you need administrators anyway, why not just bundle them into > > the vote?
>ec: Sorry, where is coming that “if you need administrators”??? I do not > need administrators!!! Parlement is a totally decentralized, P2P, > system! Every one can be an administrator. No top administrator, no “if you need > administrators”!!!
-M: I did question you about this trip. How is there a command-hierarchy in a distributed system? Emmanuel, this one appears completely bonkers to me.
Communication and command are two different things.
> > This would make a manditory rep vote, and with SD2-S, they would still > > have the option for a direct vote. (This is another uncontested point > > of mine.)
>ec: No mandatory rep vote. And I have said that from the beginning.
-M: I know you have said this. I guess if command hierarchies could be generated without having command hierarchies, this might work – no need for reps, therefore no need for manditory reps.
>ec: What I have in mind is a tool that allow groups of individuals to > write anything they want. It could be used as full fledged parliament, > or just to write a newspaper, a poem, the rules of a game. > It is in fact just slightly more than a forum. A “digg” on democratic > steroids.
-M: OK, I see Parlement and Wikis going this way, but I still don’t see the rank and command hierarchies here. It won’t work without hierarchy.
> > Does anyone have a better way?
>ec: Yes. The one some of us describe, which rely on a mix of direct and > indirect democracy, which makes sure that direct participation override > indirect one,…
-M: Mixing concepts: participation vs input. I am all for participation, but just because someone does a direct legislative input doesn’t automaticly make them a participant.
Your argument here is dependent on there being no need for top administrators – completely ‘horizontal’ administration. This hasn’t been established.
>ec: which does not require wizards to operate…
-M: SD2-S has only five input choices. This fits on a single page. No wizardry here.
>ec:…and which does not assign votes almost randomly to fill curves…
-M: This default only happens when someone doesn’t select their manditory reps.
This is just a user convienience that has the added side benefit of giving underdogs a better chance of challenging higher rank clusters.>ec:..only you care about.
-M: I am a theoretician, so I may understand things that you don’t, and therefore ‘care’ about them.
>ec: Not only that, but no one here will ever code your project.
-M: If someone doesn’t want to serve humanity, that is their problem. I’ll code it if I have to. Because of its superior theoretical basis, it will whup V-V-V. (A hybrid of V-V-V and SD2-S may be even better, SD2-S for voting, and V-V-V for information.)
>ec: You are a kid playing alone. Stop with your attitude please, and try to > join the rest of the world.
-M: I am a part of the world because I follow the rule structures that have been established by the world. Because of your violations of these rules, you have more of an attitude than me.
>ec: (that might also mean you won’t insult your own father,…
-M: Lemming = one who is willfully contradictory. My father does have this problem, but he is much better than average.
>ec: …calling him and the rest of humanity “lemmings”)
-M: ‘rest of humanity’ – no, most of humanity. Did you see my “Proof of Lemmingism” post?
Well, is it TRUE?shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 01:33:03PM -0700, Mark wrote:
> > > Unlimited depth – like PageRank. > > I already knew that you were attempting to do this, but how would > you do this without an input constrained PageRank?
Please rephrase your question.
> The comparison was for the recieved inputs from the individual voter: > V-V-V – voter chooses a delegate OR an issue position > SD2-S – voter chooses delegate(s) OR, delegate(s)-AND-issue position.
Once more, please, repeat after me: users can vote and delegate at the same time on the same issue. But the direct vote overrides the delegation.
> How are you going to calculate ranks(voting power) without a PageRank > type algorithm?(You did criticise me for using PageRank. So my issue > here isn’t your intentions, its your implimentation.)
A delegate represent a given number of persons. This is his voting power.
> > Because as you yourself agreed, direct expression is more potent > > than indirect one. > > What is more ‘potent’(whatever-the-fuck that is supposed to mean), > direct expression OR, direct expression-and-indirect expression? By > your convoluted logic my way still should be better.
It’s not convoluted, and you accepted it: direct expression is more meaningful than indirect one.
The word “potent” should be easy to find in any dictionary.
> I did question you about this trip. How is there a command-hierarchy > in a distributed system? Emmanuel, this one appears completely bonkers > to me.
There is no command-hierarchy defined by the system. But users can define a command-hierarchy if they want to.
> Communication and command are two different things.
Command require and can be defined by communication.
> Your argument here is dependent on there being no need for top > administrators – completely ‘horizontal’ administration. This hasn’t > been established.
I don’t care about it and “parlement” doesn’t care about it. “Parlement” can be used by its users to define whatever they want, including a hierarchy.
> I am a theoretician, so I may understand things that you don’t, and > therefore ‘care’ about them.
Arrogant and unfounded. A surlemming who is merely an elitist prick.
> > Not only that, but no one here will ever code your project. > > If someone doesn’t want to serve humanity, that is their problem. > I’ll code it if I have to. Because of its superior theoretical basis, > it will whup V-V-V.
Great. It’s always fun to observe. Do point us to your subversion repository.
> > You are a kid playing alone. Stop with your attitude please, and try > > to join the rest of the world. > > I am a part of the world because I follow the rule structures that > have been established by the world. Because of your violations of > these rules, you have more of an attitude than me.
Please, do ask around about your attitude. It’s easy to confirm or infirm.
I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR GAMES.
> Did you see my “Proof of Lemmingism” post? > Well, is it TRUE?
Don’t you see how arrogant and judgmental you appear?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
> > The comparison was for the recieved inputs from the individual voter: > > V-V-V – voter chooses a delegate OR an issue position > > SD2-S – voter chooses delegate(s) OR, delegate(s)-AND-issue position.
>ec: Once more, please, repeat after me: users can vote and delegate at the > same time on the same issue. But the direct vote overrides the > delegation.
-M: I did say ‘recieved inputs’ , meaning that I am looking downstream of the override.
At that point, the centrality algorithm recieves only an issue vote OR a delegate vote. This is the point of action, and therefore the point most fruitful for comparison.[…] > > > Because as you yourself agreed, direct expression is more potent > > > than indirect one.
> > What is more ‘potent’(whatever-the-fuck that is supposed to mean), > > direct expression OR, direct expression-and-indirect expression? By > > your convoluted logic my way still should be better.
>ec: It’s not convoluted, and you accepted it: direct expression is more > meaningful than indirect one.
-M: Maybe more meaningful is some contexts, and SD2-S does measure it. And I still asked: “What is more ‘potent’, direct expression OR, direct expression-and-indirect expression?” Well?
>ec: The word “potent” should be easy to find in any dictionary.
-M: This is a strange word for the context.
> > I did question you about this trip. How is there a command-hierarchy > > in a distributed system? Emmanuel, this one appears completely bonkers > > to me.
>ec: There is no command-hierarchy defined by the system. But users can define a command-hierarchy if they want to.
-M: Is there a hierarchal initial condition for a snowballing into more elaborate hierarchies? An example would be to have a popular vote to have SD2-S.
DD is the initial hierarchal condition here.But if its just DD, then you aren’t coming up with anything new.
> > Communication and command are two different things.
>ec: Command require and can be defined by communication.
-M: No, command needs to be defined by centrality algorithms with thresholds.
This is atleast DD with 50%+1. I did tell you that I was a theoretican.Communication only relates to individual inputs.
> > Your argument here is dependent on there being no need for top > > administrators – completely ‘horizontal’ administration. This hasn’t > > been established.
>ec: I don’t care about it and “parlement” doesn’t care about it. “Parlement” > can be used by its users to define whatever they want, including a > hierarchy.
-M: Again, there still needs to be a pre-defined hierarchal initial condition.
> > I am a theoretician, so I may understand things that you don’t, and > > therefore ‘care’ about them.
>ec: Arrogant and unfounded.
-M: Au contraire.
>ec: A surlemming who is merely an elitist prick.
-M: It doesn’t serve humanity to disrespect those who actually know what they are talking about. You have attitude problems.
> > > Not only that, but no one here will ever code your project.
> > If someone doesn’t want to serve humanity, that is their problem. > > I’ll code it if I have to. Because of its superior theoretical basis, > > it will whup V-V-V.
>ec: Great. It’s always fun to observe. Do point us to your subversion repository.
-M: SD2-S will get coded, probably in Ruby.
> > > You are a kid playing alone. Stop with your attitude please, and try > > > to join the rest of the world.
> > I am a part of the world because I follow the rule structures that > > have been established by the world. Because of your violations of > > these rules, you have more of an attitude than me.
>ec: Please, do ask around about your attitude. It’s easy to confirm or > infirm. I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR GAMES.
-M: Then you don’t care about established and proven rule structures. This makes you arrogant and a deviant. Maybe you should join rest of the world.
> > Did you see my “Proof of Lemmingism” post? > > Well, is it TRUE?
>ec: Don’t you see how arrogant and judgmental you appear?
-M: I am asking you about TRUTH, not appearances. Well, is it TRUE? Yes/no?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
OK, conversation is over as far as I’m concerned.
It leads nowhere, and illegale asked me to stop it. Fine.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
-
-
At 04:33 PM 9/6/2006, Mark wrote:
> >ec: Sorry, where is coming that “if you need administrators”??? I do not > > need administrators!!! Parlement is a totally decentralized, P2P, > > system! Every one can be an administrator. No top administrator, > no “if you need > > administrators”!!! > >-M: I did question you about this trip. How is there a >command-hierarchy in a distributed system? Emmanuel, this one appears >completely bonkers to me. > >Communication and command are two different things.
Indeed they are. Command, in fact, generally inhibits communication.
FA/DP organizations don’t have command structures, as such. From the AA Traditions, “AA as such ought never be organized, but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.” What does this mean in practice?
An AA meeting does have to decide certain things. It has to decide to pay the rent. It has to decide who is to facilitate meetings. (In AA, this person is called the “Secretary,” though the function is generally as a chair. There is also, typically, a Treasurer, who holds and disburses the meager funds that meetings keep on hand.) If the meeting starts to collect more money than it needs for the rent and to buy publications and coffee (this is about it for AA meeting expenses), it needs to decide what to do with it. So the meeting will either vote to do a thing or will delegate the authority. No commands are involved. The meeting will ask the Treasurer to write a check. The Treasurer can, and being an alcoholic, may quite well say, “Up yours.” Will they sue him? Not likely. The amount of money involved is typically so small that the meeting can raise it by passing the hat once. Or maybe twice. No, they ask him to do it. Usually he will. I knew of a meeting where the Treasurer simply spent the money on her own needs. Of course, that meeting didn’t give her any more money….
Okay, we have an online FA. There is admin, in spite of what EC wrote. Somebody has the keys to the domain. In an FA, that person is a trustee. They are trusted to manage the asset in their hands for the best interests of the group. Can the group command admin to do anything? No. Admin has the keys.
However, admin is “directly responsible” to the members of the FA. What does this mean? It means that, because of the structure of the organization, where people know and have direct contact information for each other, if they don’t like the way that admin is running the group, and admin refuses to recognize a vote of the members, they can simply take their marbles elsewhere. If the meeting is, say, a yahoogroup, they can start another, and those who want to move to the new one will do so, and those who want to stay, will do so, and quite a few will do both. How does this differ from any old mailing list? Well, the members can directly contact each other, either all of them, or at least those who have named proxies in a DP organization. The proxy structure dovetails with the fissionability that is standard for AA meetings. There are no significant assets to fight over. All that a meeting owns is an agreement with the provider of space for a time to meet.
Mature AA members don’t fight over control of meetings. Newcomers can and do. The oldtimers, if they don’t like the way a meeting is run, simply go to a different one, and they quite easily start a new one at the drop of a hat. Or, rather, at the passing of the hat….
The saying in AA is, “All you need to start a new meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot.” It is quite possible that the phenomenally rapid growth of AA (it grew until it essentially saturated its market, within a few years) was due to this ready generation of new meetings. A new meeting means another time and place available.
Okay, so I’m a trustee of an FA, and the FA votes to, say, abandon the FA traditions, in my opinion, in a way that I consider seriously prejudicial, and, perhaps with forged proxies, I suspect, but I can’t or don’t care to prove it. What can I do? Well, I’ve promised in at least one FA that I would probably turn the home page of the FA into a pointer. One prominent link would point to the “original” group, and other links would point to daughter groups. Someone who was referred to the FA would see, in NPOV language, what happened, and would be able to find the groups.
Why would I not simply do what the apparent majority voted for. Well, as a trustee, I’d consider myself responsible to all the members, not just to the majority. If there were any significant minority opposed to the change, their interests would be prejudiced by the simple implementation of it.
But another trustee might do it. The minority can still create its own meeting.
>-M: OK, I see Parlement and Wikis going this way, but I still don’t see >the rank and command hierarchies here. It won’t work without hierarchy.
DP creates the necessary hierarchy. And an FA/DP structure advises those who actually hold the keys. For example, admin at Wikipedia could be an example of the latter.
In AA, the central business is handled by AA World Services, Inc, a nonprofit organization. That organization, by its bylaws, does not accumulate more than a “prudent reserve.” For continued operation, they depend on continued contributions from meetings, usually channeled through intergroups. AAWS is a board-controlled organization. I think the members of the Board are elected at the annual AA Conference, which otherwise is only an advisory body with respect to AAWS. The Conference cannot command AAWS to spend a penny. But, of course, the Conference does represent the membership, the people who actually make the contributions. AAWS will usually follow a Conference consensus. Where the Conference is divided, the AAWS board simply makes its own decisions. The board is legally responsible.
AAWS is prohibited by bylaws, again, from accepting contributions and bequests of more than, I think, $1000. The system is specifically designed to keep AAWS “directly responsible” to the membership of AA, without being controlled by the membership.
And, it seems, it has worked quite well. Bill Wilson, himself, had bitter disputes with the board, though it seems it worked out in the end. He later described his own anger at the board as being on a “dry drunk.”
>-M: Lemming = one who is willfully contradictory.
That is not a lemming. That is an anti-lemming. Not necessarily better, by the way. Lemmings are not contradictory, they avoid conflict. They “go with the flow.”
+1
-
