[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

AbdLomax — 2006-09-16 19:05:55+0200

At 06:00 PM 9/15/2006, echarp wrote: >It’s rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much,

actually, it’s huge….

> but being open >to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to people who might just >want to break everything.

(1) “Open” does not mean “open with absolutely no exception.” It means “substantially open, such that the label is not deceptive.”

Read more… / Lire plus…

(2) Open does not mean “unconditionally open to modifications by anyone.” There can be a process for approving modifications. Wikipedia is, frankly, a mess. Some articles are very, very good. But where there exists substantial controversy, wikipedia has essentially an “administrators and their delegates are God” position, which means that if there is an edit war, admins come in and resolve it. However they please. Right now there is an article that I generally follow which is quite damaged, because admin decided that links to web sites that contain advertising are taboo. However, eliminated under this policy are sites that provide resources to users for discussion and the dissemination of information, which are advertising-supported. In other words, they are like newspapers or cnn.com or the like. And Wikipedia routinely links from the home page articles that refer to cnn.com, for example, for news. So the policy was applied in quite an arbitrary manner. Why? Well, admins don’t like to spend a lot of time reviewing and deeply considering matters that are not of direct interest to them. They come in and make a snap judgement. Then they defend it, which is entirely another matter.

Wikipedia is great. But there are serious problems with “open to all,” if there are not similarly TOP processes for resolving disputes. I’m sure there is a way to get involved on Wikipedia and to participate. But I’m also sure that the institutional inertia is huge. If I see some small problem, I don’t want to have to rattle the cage of the owner…. I want to have a small easy process for dealing with it, something that does not involve personally joining and learning a whole new world, the world of Wikipedia administration.

The problem could be easily solved. If I knew where admin issue discussion and policy resolution was taking place (I could find it, I’m sure, but the whole point is that it should be easy), I could watch the traffic. I could pick out someone who, it seemed to me, had a good grasp of the issues, who might effectively represent what I have to say. Now, right now, I might be able to email or otherwise contact this person directly. So, informally, such a system already exists. It is just not easy. “Open and transparent” does imply “easy.”

It does not mean that automatically I could, myself, set Wikipedia policy or unilaterally determine article content. The person behind the edit war on the article in question was actually a person who had apparently posted a link to his web site, which was, allegedly — I didn’t verify this myself — an advertising-oriented site, i.e., was selling something. Primarily. A user removed the link for that reason (which may have been in error, but which was in line with Wikipedia policy. The user then retaliated by removing all links. And this went back and forth for quite some time until Wiki admin froze the article ~~- or at least the links section -~~, and then ultimately came back with a ban on all links with any advertising. Which shut out what has become, for me, the primary information source on the subject, because it has thousands of users, many of them experts. And, yes, every page has an ad on it somewhere…. the site sells advertising. Like yahoo, google, and most organizations that don’t have some angel behind them, or a strong support structure.

>What is the qualification for modifications?

Well consensus or the consensus of those delegated to make decisions on behalf of the members, by consensus. Or, at least, by majority approval. This should be on-going, i.e., a consensus at one time should not prevent a new and different consensus from forming later.

The way I’d generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the like, would routinely have the right to make edits. If they abuse the privilege, a moderator could restrict their right. And that restriction would be appealable. The exact process would depend on the size of the org and its nature, but the ultimate authority, if it is to be fully democratic, is with the assembly as a whole, which may routinely delegate that authority. With a DP process, there is always some kind of access to the top, through filters chosen by the member being restricted.

Non-DP organizations which would still satisfy the due process requirements to qualify as TOP would still have similar structures. (And do. Access to the U.S. Congress is through legislators, and access to the legislators is through staff chosen by the legislators. If you look at it closely, when it works, it is quite similar to DP, but with some serious gaps; the basic gap is that the filtering is not chosen at the bottom, but at the top. There will still be top-chosen filtering: a high-level proxy does not, in the DP systems we conceive, automatically have an obligation to receive communication from just anyone, but only from a defined set, those who have both chosen him and he has accepted. The freedom is in both directions.

Note that if this leaves a certain number of people out, because nobody will accept them, those people can agree to select a common proxy, and if enough of them do this, they would routinely have access to a higher level. But it’s not guaranteed: you can be so isolated in your opinions and so anti-social in your behavior that nobody wants to talk with you.

And that is exactly how it should be. In an FA/DP organization, nobody is punished by the organization. Not even criminals. But people may protect themselves, and the organization does not force any individual to associate with any other.

>Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it >functions can be modified by anybody else?

The confusion here is between “modification” of the rules and “proposing modification.”

The assumption seems to be that just anyone can change the rules. Sure, they can, but those changes do not bind or affect anyone but them. Unless their changes gain broader acceptance.

>I’m merely building on serge’s proposal of “open”. Proposal I really >like, but which would ask to qualify participants.

Organizations can have a qualification process, and if it does not unreasonably exclude anyone who would be legitimately concerned with the organization’s decisions, the organization could still be called “open.”

If the burden of qualification becomes greater than necessary, however, the label starts to be deceptive.

>An example: wiki are very often consultable and modifiable by everyone, >and I guess a generic FA with not many assets could be just the same,

An FA may maintain an open wiki, but that does not mean that just anyone is allowed to modify it regardless. Our wikis are often subject to insertion of content by spammers, wherever there is a weak link. The SandBox, for example, in TikiWiki, may be edited by non-registered users. And so there are spambots which look for open SandBoxes and fill them with links. Wikis that do not require password access from validated members (i.e., email address has been confirmed by response to authentication mail) routinely get totally replaced by spam links. I learned the hard way. The entire wiki structure had been taken away, including all the admin access. Yes, there was a way to recover it, but it was … tedious.

Members who deliberately and persistently modify pages in a way that causes an implication of a position being taken by the FA, which has not, in fact, been taken, can easily see their access restricted. That is not punishment, it is necessary restriction.

Wikipedia can afford to be totally open — no validation is necessary — because they have a huge number of volunteers who can track down and report IP addresses of spammers and vandals. Most wikis, however, do require registration. Registration is easy and open, it does not prevent anyone from joining. Yet it also does allow the identification of the source of antisocial behavior, and an organization may decide to sanction such behavior.

“Open” does not mean that every individual can do just whatever he chooses, with the group resources. It means that every member is free to express his opinion, within the bounds of propriety, and that there is a process by which that opinion is filtered. I.e., it is considered, though not necessarily by the whole organization. Indeed, in a large organization, that becomes impossible. DP makes almost total openness possible, regardless of scale, but many other methods exist and are in use. They just don’t scale as well.

“Transparent” and “open” are thus not absolutes, they are relative. There is a children’s educational page in our newspaper, and it, perhaps unknowingly, had some cartoons in it, about democratic process, that were hilarious. The page makes games out of the subjects it examines, word puzzles, mazes, etc. So they had a cartoon on the right of petition. And it showed a maze, with a letter at one end and a mailbox on the other end. “Help Betty send a letter to the mayor,” was the caption.

A petition should not have to go through a maze! Yes, there must be a process, but it must not be unnecessarily difficult to negotiate. A process might exist, but if it is too difficult, we should not call the organization “transparent.”

>but what of other human associations which might control important >elements. Do you give the power to anybody to control it? Why?

This is, by the way, the reason why I think that we need to have large FA/DP organizations before the other major reforms will become possible. FA/DP organizations merely communicate and advise, they do not control. Once there is control, there is an attraction for parasites, and, typically, vulnerable nodes in the system. This concept of separating communication from control, I think, is relatively new, though it is really obvious from an information theory point of view. Control threatens people who perceive themselves a being likely to be harmed by it, which then distorts their participation in the communication process that should precede control.

People will still realize that if a position they do not like becomes a consensus position (i.e., is supported by the large majority of members), they will not be able to resist it, when the implementation comes (outside the organization), but there is quite a difference between being attached to an outcome and being intransigent in communication about it. Intransigence in communication simply leads the intrasigent to be excluded and neglected. It backfires. And high-level proxies will, I’m sure, understand this, and will attempt to insure that deliberation is complete and includes all relevant points of view, before the matter is considered settled by the organization.

This will happen, I expect, in non-FAs, and particularly in DP power control structures. But I’m interested in the process as a communications one. How can broad consensus be developed? It will not always be possible, but many times issues are clouded by intransigent positions that are unsustainable in the light of day. FA/DP organizations could, using wiki and wiki-like technology, develop documents which present arguments and analysis in a way that attempts to make them complete. Unresolved issues are stated as unresolved, but whatever evidence exists on any side would be made accessible. With such a document, anyone interested in the issue can find, in an organized way, the arguments and evidence on all sides.

With the Wikipedia article I mentioned above, there is a huge controversy outside the article, and it is reflected in the article. There is an attempt — this is Wikipedia, after all — to state the arguments, but the difficulty of this under Wikipedia rules is so great that what we get is a farrago of arguments “Pro” and “Con,” which vastly oversimplifies the situation, and arguments are made that are, quite simply, unsupportable. But they can be made on Wikipedia because some “expert” somewhere made the statement. The analysis necessary to tease apart legitimate arguments (on all sides) is not really allowed on Wikipedia. What it would take is an independent site dedicated to analysis, which will include POV pages or blocks, but in a context which makes clear what is behind all the arguments.

Okay, all this is being said in a vacuum, perhaps I should cite the article. It is on the “Atkins Nutritional Approach.” The article is generally considered inadequate by most of those interested in it, but it is extremely difficult, in the Wikipedia context, to improve it. The Pro/Con division of the article allows deceptive arguments (arguments that would not be made by a sophisticated and honest supporter of the position being argued) to stand. After all, these are, say, Con views that are being expressed out there. Never mind that they are thoroughly discredited and an embarrassment those who legitimately oppose the Atkins approach.

The Wikipedia process is inadequate to discover and present consensus information where there is entrenched controversy. Now, Wikipedians would answer that Wikipedia is not intended to do this, it is merely an encyclopedia. However, a standard encyclopedia would never include the controversial — and deceptive — material that one can find in the article I mentioned. Wikipedia is attempting to transcend ordinary encyclopedia, and, quite specifically, by converging on consensus articles where the vast bulk of the material in the article is solid. In order to do this, Wikipedia needs, among other things, some kind of editorial process that is not fully distributed, that includes input from the full public, but which also includes a decision making process that respects broad consensus and does not allow isolated opinion to pretend equality with it. This is where Wikipedia falls short.

However, as I find typical with FA/DP solutions, Wikipedia does not need to change to ameliorate the situation. An independent Wikipedia FA/DP organization could do it, and that organization would provide the analysis needed. As an independent site with pages on the subjects in Wikipedia, it could be linked from Wikipedia articles, quite legitimately (you can link to controversial sites; the site I’m mentioning would not actually be controversial, but people who dislike inconvenient information would charge that it is). And if participation in the Wikipedia admin process is necessary, a few members of this FA could participate.

That is, an independent FA/DP organization can, theoretically and practically, reform a non-FA, by organizing the members of the latter independently. FA/DP organizations of shareholders in corporations could radically reform the often corrupt management of corporations by management-controlled boards. It is not necessary to change the actual corporate control proces, which, typically, is already susceptible to control by the shareholders, collectively. If the shareholders are organized. Typically, they are not, except to the extent that a large block of shares is owned by one shareholder, and, I think, there are companies which do nothing but represent large institutional shareholders, holding and exercising their proxies, and these, through multiple clients, do represent a kind of shareholder organization. But small shareholders are left out of the equation, and there are so many of them, and they are so easily influenced by self-interested management,

>How do you qualify the “open” part of TOP?

I went a bit afield above, didn’t I? To qualify it requires a fairly deep discussion. It is fine unqualified, as long as the detailed description does not take way what any reasonable reader would imply from the mere use of the term in context. “Transparent, Open, Public.”

It is not a simple problem. Secret ballot, for example, is not transparent. If an initiative fails, we don’t know who, specifically, opposed it. It is one thing to use occasional secret ballot to validate and confirm that an open process is not being distorted by coercion, direct or subtle, but quite another thing to build a whole system on it. Indeed, the probability seems high to me that the last two Presidential elections in the U.S. were distorted by corruption and error in the election process, producing results opposite to the actual intention of a majority of voters. Secret ballot systems will always be vulnerable, to some degree, to this.

So we really should look at why secret ballot is being used. It’s obvious in some contexts, but far from obvious in others. Town Meeting towns have open, public voting on issues before the town. Coercion seems to be so rare that it might as well be nonexistent. There is a disconnect between Town Meeting results and results in secret ballot required by state law, but that disconnect, as far as I have seen, is sufficiently explained by Town Meeting consisting of informed voters, with secret ballot being broader and thus including many votes not benefiting from participation in deliberation.

I would suggest that an organization is not fully TOP unless all participants are known, or, if not known, then what they contribute does not control outcomes, it is merely information subject to verification or rejection by the organization’s process. Full TOP may not be realizable in power structures under present conditions. So I would think that one needs to develop a series of measures and report how an organization satisfies the criteria. 100% in all measures may not be possible outside of FAs. But organizations could substantially satisfy the criteria, and thus legitimately be called TOP.

I know, you’d like to have a clear criterion, such that if they do X, they are TOP, and if not, they are not. Unfortunately, such clear criteria are rare with measures that are truly useful.

But an organization which is only open “to its members,” if membership is restricted, is not purely “open.”

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Mark Rosst — 2006-12-07 20:17:49+0100

[…] > >> >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-( > >mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. > > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably > > wouldn’t agree with you. > > >-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves > are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? > Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?

>mG:[…] the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence > since we are discussing equal righted humans…

-M: Which is why, with SD2-S, that everyone initially has equal voting power.
SD2-S is democratic-republicanism.

>mG:…with possibility to be anonymous. And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. > Neither are there laws, TOP or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: If AD uses the lemming algorithm, then the wolves can dupe the lemmings into a dinner.

> >>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best > >> handled by broad participation… > > >-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and > even encouraged by SD2-S.

>mG: -Well, whats mainly encouraged in SD2 is voting for a rep. I would say. > AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a > delegate. But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be > options in a future TOP organization or country government. > This debate is not leading to anywhere.

-M: You said “SD2” – and yes, this is for selecting reps. But the system I am talking about is SD2-S, which has specialists for every issue,
so this functions much like your ‘delegates’ of AD. Again, I don’t see the comparison.

> >-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and > non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the revolutionary Ben Franklin.)

>mG: -Ben was wrong and he knew it.

-M: Franklin and Hamilton were the best anti-imperialists this world has seen.
Gandhi and Nehru were populistic wussies by comparison.

>mG: He just needed to justify his own and other reps. future power. > There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither > accountable to each other. So they can go and elect Hitler.

-M: Again, the debate isn’t RD vs DD, its lemming-algorithm vs Markov-algorithms,
and in the above example it is the lemming-algorithm which selected Hitler.
So this is a point against you, and not me.

>mG: By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for > DD. Just BS theory frankly.

-M: You keep attacking L-RD. You are attacking the lemming algorithm which supports DD. I will let you continue to whup yourself.

> >>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a > > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history… > > >-M: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN > CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE. > >mG: -As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples > homes. Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?

-M: Ignorance and lack of vigilence. This is why intelligent and vigilent people must be selected to lead government.
This is why SD2-S has a peer-endorsement algorithm.

> >-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are > counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.

>mG: -It will be impossible within a true TOP organization to steal. > Your problem is how a rep can be fully TOP since he can’t be followed > and tapped 24/7. Concentate on solving that instead.

-M: I envision SD2-S to be TOP complient, so you aren’t making a comparison again.

> >>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently. > > >-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.

>mG: -???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant > examples?

-M: The bottom 50% percent of income earners in the world own only 1% of the world.
This is a result of lemmingism.

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: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Magnus — 2006-12-05 23:42:08+0100

>-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose 50%-70%.
And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.

-OK, looks fine to me.

>> >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-( >mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably > wouldn’t agree with you.

>-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?

Read more… / Lire plus…

-Another BS from you, the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence since we are discussing equal righted humans with possibility to be anonymous.
And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. Neither are there laws, TOP or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.

>>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best >> handled by broad participation…

>-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and even encouraged by SD2-S.

-Well, whats mainly encouraged in SD2 is voting for a rep. I would say. AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a delegate.
But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be options in a future TOP organization or country government. This debate is not leading to anywhere.

>>mG:…and decisions taken by all.

>-M: WTF for?

-For the same reasons as above.

>-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the

revolutionary Ben Franklin.)

-Ben was wrong and he knew it. He just needed to justify his own and other reps. future power.
There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither accountable to each other.
So they can go and elect Hitler.
By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for DD.
Just BS theory frankly.

>>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…

>-M: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE.

-As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples homes.
Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?

>-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.

-It will be impossible within a true TOP organization to steal. Your problem is how a rep can be fully TOP since he can’t be followed and tapped 24/7.
Concentate on solving that instead.

>>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.

>-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.

-???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant examples?

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Mark Rosst — 2006-12-02 00:31:44+0100

> >-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the > active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in > favor of the issue. In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter support

>mG: -Sounds complicated. Does all issues have thresholds from the beginning > and how are they set?

-M: Have you seen my input field? —————————————————————————————————————--

Read more… / Lire plus…

Name ___________________________]

Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]

Optional additional representitives: _______________________] ____________________________________________________]

Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Deliberate [ ]

Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): ________________________________________]

Decision threshold ⁶⁰%… (range 50%+1 – 70%, default 60%)

…of a required ²⁰%5 of qualified voters (range (0% – 40%)5, default 20%+5) —————————————————————————

-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose 50%-70%.
And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.

> >>mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it. > > >-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was > implimented. As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.

> >>mG: ~~Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as > > possible, quite a big difference.. > > >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :~~(

>mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably > wouldn’t agree with you.

-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?

> >-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. > Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of society -

>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best > handled by broad participation…

-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and even encouraged by SD2-S.

>mG:…and decisions taken by all.

-M: WTF for?

> >OR ELSE. By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.

>mG: -Another example of non prooven BS. Either you present some evidence > for it or remain silent.

-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the revolutionary Ben Franklin.)

> >-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. > This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.

>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…

-M: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE.

>mG:…so you are coming with more BS.

-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.

>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.

-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Magnus — 2006-11-28 10:39:33+0100

>-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in favor of the issue.
In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter support

-Sounds complicated. Does all issues have thresholds from the beginning and how are they set?
If not, how can the people reactr before a corrupt leader decides soemthing together with his group thinking partners in the top?

>>mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it.

>-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was implimented.
As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-True, but any idea we discuss will in reality be implemeted in a country by the AD-strategy -to be adapted inside a party which get elected into a parliament.
Any other strategies I see fruitless since the established power structures never will let any revolutionary different democary systems in by free will.
On the oher hand, all decisions taken inside a new party can be fair, just and according to TOP.
And this is what is to be discussed, not the rest of the world. A parallell: If a good system finally would make it and take over a whole contry one could always argue the the UN is still ruled bu other power structures etc etc, but this is not an argument for not using a better system in a specific contry, city or party.

>>mG: -Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as > possible, quite a big difference..

>-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-(

-This is claimed by you, please proove it. I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably wouldn’t agree with you.

>-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of

society -

-But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best handled by broad participation and decisions taken by all.

>OR ELSE. By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.

-Another example of non prooven BS. Either you present some evidence for it or remain silent.

>-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.

-The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history so you are coming with more BS. Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-27 22:43:25+0100

> > >-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ > > meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed, > > the issue goes into deliberation. > >mG: What do you mean?

> >-M: For example people may vote to have the deliberation threshold at > 40%, meaning that a popular vote of >40% is needed for an issue to pass, > even if the specialist vote was beyond the needed supermajority. > It would be deliberated until the needed popular threshold was met.

>mG: -I don’t understand still, people vote to have the delib threshold at > 40%? In a specific issue?

-M: Yes for both.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>mG: Will this mean that the issue is not decided until there is 40% or more > direct votes in the issue or what? Or that reps having 40% of the voters support have to vote?

-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in favor of the issue.
In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter support

>mG: What is deliberation in SD2?

-M: With SD2, this would occur if there was a split vote among directors.
With SD2-S, this occurs when specialist threshold is met, but popular threshold isn’t.

> >>mG: How has DD a power hiearchy? > > >-M: There are still top administrators, > and many would probably have ‘bully pulpit’ power.

>mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it.

-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was implimented.
As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.

> >-M: ALL systems have power concentration, > so you aren’t making a comparison. > What SD2-S does is place those few on the hot seat.

>mG: -Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as > possible, quite a big difference..

-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-(

>mG: The hot seat is only valuable if you want to hang some corrupt > politician, more like a prison instead of solving the problems in > society from the base.

-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of society -
OR ELSE.
By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.

> >>mG: With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could > > evolve to any significant levels. > > >-M: The lemmings are still lemmings, > and they also can still be duped as usual.

>mG: -This was about corruption, not Lemmings. Can you respond to it or did > I win this? Show me one example where a people is corrupt and not their leaders.

-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Magnus — 2006-11-27 13:08:15+0100

> > >-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ > meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed, > the issue goes into deliberation. >mG: What do you mean?

>-M: For example people may vote to have the deliberation threshold at 40%,
meaning that a popular vote of >40% is needed for an issue to pass, even if the specialist vote was beyond the needed supermajority. It would be deliberated until the needed popular threshold was met.

-I don’t understand still, people vote to have the delib threshold at 40%? In a specific issue?
Will this mean that the issue is not decided until there is 40% or more direct votes in the issue or what?
Or that reps having 40% of the voters support have to vote? What is deliberation in SD2?

Read more… / Lire plus…

>>mG: How has DD a power hiearchy?

>-M: There are still top administrators, and many would probably have ‘bully pulpit’ power.

-Show me one in AD and will comment on it.

>-M: ALL systems have power concentration, so you aren’t making a comparison.
What SD2-S does is place those few on the hot seat.

-Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as possible, quite a big difference..
The hot seat is only valuable if you want to hang some corrupt politician, more like a prison instead of solving the problems in society from the base.

>>mG: With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could > evolve to any significant levels.

>-M: The lemmings are still lemmings, and they also can still be duped as usual.

-This was about corruption, not Lemmings. Can you respond to it or did I win this?
Show me one example where a people is corrupt and not their leaders.

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 00:54:12+0100

> >-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ > meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed, > the issue goes into deliberation.

>mG: What do you mean?

-M: For example people may vote to have the deliberation threshold at 40%,
meaning that a popular vote of >40% is needed for an issue to pass, even if the specialist vote was beyond the needed supermajority. It would be deliberated until the needed popular threshold was met.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> >-M: ‘misuse’ – wtf is this? > DD has a power hierarchy just like RD, > meaning that both are vulnerable to corruption. > SD2-S’s solution is to put the most trustworthy at the top, > and have them compete for senority.

>mG: How has DD a power hiearchy?

-M: There are still top administrators, and many would probably have ‘bully pulpit’ power.

>mG: How can there be corruption in a truly DD system with TOP in place? > The SD2 solution is better than todays crap, but not as good as DD > since you still have dangerous amount of power concentrated to a few.

-M: ALL systems have power concentration, so you aren’t making a comparison.
What SD2-S does is place those few on the hot seat.

>mG: With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could > evolve to any significant levels.

-M: The lemmings are still lemmings, and they also can still be duped as usual.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Magnus — 2006-11-24 15:53:04+0100

>-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed,
the issue goes into deliberation.

-What do you mean?

>-M: ‘misuse’ – wtf is this? DD has a power hierarchy just like RD,
meaning that both are vulnerable to corruption.
SD2-S’s solution is to put the most trustworthy at the top, and have them compete for senority.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-How has DD a power hiearchy? How can there be corruption in a truly DD system with TOP in place? The SD2 solution is better than todays crap, but not as good as DD since you still have dangerous amount of power concentrated to a few. With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could evolve to any significant levels.

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-10 22:29:28+0100

> >M: DD controls the deliberation and thresholds, > and RD controls the decisions. > Why do otherwise?

>mG: -Just becuse there might be some decisions that can be against the will > of the people or it’s rights.

-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed,
the issue goes into deliberation.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>mG: In those cases the only guarantee for no misuse from any rep. is to > allow DD, at least on these important issues.

-M: ‘misuse’ – wtf is this? DD has a power hierarchy just like RD,
meaning that both are vulnerable to corruption.
SD2-S’s solution is to put the most trustworthy at the top, and have them compete for senority.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA