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

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_94/index.rss [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization 2006-12-07 20:17:49+0100 http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_97/index.rss http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_97/index.rss Mark Rosst <p><p>[…]<br /> > >> >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-(<br /> > >mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it.<br /> > > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably<br /> > > wouldn’t agree with you.<br /> ><br /> > >-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves<br /> > are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep?<br /> > Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?</p> <p>>mG:[…] the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence<br /> > since we are discussing equal righted humans…</p> <p>-M: Which is why, with SD2-S, that everyone initially has equal voting<br /> power.<br/><br /> SD2-S is <strong>democratic</strong>-republicanism.</p> <p>>mG:…with possibility to be anonymous. And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep.<br /> > Neither are there laws, <span class="caps">TOP</span> or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.</p> <p><a class="readMore" href="#" onclick="Element.hide(this); Element.removeClassName(this.parentNode.nextSibling, 'tooLarge'); return false;">Read more… / Lire plus…</a><br /> <div class="tooLarge"></p> <p>-M: If AD uses the lemming algorithm,<br /> then the wolves can dupe the lemmings into a dinner.</p> <p>> >>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best<br /> > >> handled by broad participation…<br /> ><br /> > >-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and<br /> > even encouraged by SD2-S.</p> <p>>mG: -Well, whats mainly encouraged in SD2 is voting for a rep. I would say.<br /> > AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a<br /> > delegate. But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be<br /> > options in a future <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization or country government.<br /> > This debate is not leading to anywhere.</p> <p>-M: You said “SD2” – and yes, this is for selecting reps.<br /> But the system I am talking about is <strong>SD2-S</strong>, which has specialists for<br /> every issue,<br/><br /> so this functions much like your ‘delegates’ of AD.<br /> Again, I don’t see the comparison.</p> <p>> >-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and<br /> > non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the revolutionary Ben Franklin.)</p> <p>>mG: -Ben was wrong and he knew it.</p> <p>-M: Franklin and Hamilton were the best anti-imperialists this world<br /> has seen.<br/><br /> Gandhi and Nehru were populistic wussies by comparison.</p> <p>>mG: He just needed to justify his own and other reps. future power.<br /> > There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither<br /> > accountable to each other. So they can go and elect Hitler.</p> <p>-M: Again, the debate isn’t RD vs DD,<br /> its lemming-algorithm vs Markov-algorithms,<br/><br /> and in the above example it is the lemming-algorithm which selected<br /> Hitler.<br/><br /> So this is a point against you, and not me.</p> <p>>mG: By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for<br /> > DD. Just BS theory frankly.</p> <p>-M: You keep attacking L-RD.<br /> You are attacking the lemming algorithm which supports DD.<br /> I will let you continue to whup yourself.</p> <p>> >>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a<br /> > > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…<br /> ><br /> > >-M: <span class="caps">EVERY</span> <span class="caps">SINGLE</span> <span class="caps">FORM</span> OF <span class="caps">CORRUPTION</span>, <span class="caps">WITHOUT</span> <span class="caps">EXCEPTION</span>, <span class="caps">HAS</span> <span class="caps">BEEN</span><br /> > <span class="caps">CORRUPTION</span> <span class="caps">ALLOWED</span> BY <span class="caps">THE</span> <span class="caps">PEOPLE</span>.<br /> ><br /> >mG: -As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples<br /> > homes. Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?</p> <p>-M: Ignorance and lack of vigilence.<br /> This is why intelligent and vigilent people must be selected to lead<br /> government.<br/><br /> This is why SD2-S has a peer-endorsement algorithm.</p> <p>> >-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are<br /> > counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.</p> <p>>mG: -It will be impossible within a true <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization to steal.<br /> > Your problem is how a rep can be fully <span class="caps">TOP</span> since he can’t be followed<br /> > and tapped 24/7. Concentate on solving that instead.</p> <p>-M: I envision SD2-S to be <span class="caps">TOP</span> complient,<br /> so you aren’t making a comparison again.</p> <p>> >>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.<br /> ><br /> > >-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.</p> <p>>mG: -???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant<br /> > examples?</p> <p>-M: The bottom 50% percent of income earners in the world own only 1%<br /> of the world.<br/><br /> This is a result of lemmingism.</p> <p>shanti<br/><br /> Mark, Seattle WA <span class="caps">USA</span></p> <p>—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~<br /> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.<br /> To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics@googlegroups.com">top-politics@googlegroups.com</a><br /> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a><br /> For more options, visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en">http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en</a><br /> -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-</p> </div></p> [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization 2006-12-05 23:42:08+0100 http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_96/index.rss http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_96/index.rss Magnus <p><p>>-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose<br /> 50%-70%.<br/><br /> And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.</p> <p>-OK, looks fine to me.</p> <p>>> >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-(<br /> >mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it.<br /> > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably<br /> > wouldn’t agree with you.</p> <p>>-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves<br /> are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep?<br /> Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?</p> <p><a class="readMore" href="#" onclick="Element.hide(this); Element.removeClassName(this.parentNode.nextSibling, 'tooLarge'); return false;">Read more… / Lire plus…</a><br /> <div class="tooLarge"></p> <p>-Another BS from you, the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence<br /> since we are discussing equal righted humans with possibility to be<br /> anonymous.<br/><br /> And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep.<br /> Neither are there laws, <span class="caps">TOP</span> or media to cover the dinner of the<br /> wolfes.</p> <p>>>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best<br /> >> handled by broad participation…</p> <p>>-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and<br /> even encouraged by SD2-S.</p> <p>-Well, whats mainly encouraged in SD2 is voting for a rep. I would say.<br /> AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a<br /> delegate.<br/><br /> But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be<br /> options in a future <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization or country government.<br /> This debate is not leading to anywhere.</p> <p>>>mG:…and decisions taken by all.</p> <p>>-M: <span class="caps">WTF</span> for?</p> <p>-For the same reasons as above.</p> <p>>-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and<br /> non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the</p> <p>revolutionary Ben Franklin.)</p> <p>-Ben was wrong and he knew it. He just needed to justify his own and<br /> other reps. future power.<br/><br /> There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither<br /> accountable to each other.<br/><br /> So they can go and elect Hitler.<br/><br /> By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for<br /> DD.<br/><br /> Just BS theory frankly.</p> <p>>>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a<br /> > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…</p> <p>>-M: <span class="caps">EVERY</span> <span class="caps">SINGLE</span> <span class="caps">FORM</span> OF <span class="caps">CORRUPTION</span>, <span class="caps">WITHOUT</span> <span class="caps">EXCEPTION</span>, <span class="caps">HAS</span> <span class="caps">BEEN</span><br /> <span class="caps">CORRUPTION</span> <span class="caps">ALLOWED</span> BY <span class="caps">THE</span> <span class="caps">PEOPLE</span>.</p> <p>-As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples<br /> homes.<br/><br /> Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?</p> <p>>-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are<br /> counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.</p> <p>-It will be impossible within a true <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization to steal.<br /> Your problem is how a rep can be fully <span class="caps">TOP</span> since he can’t be followed<br /> and tapped 24/7.<br/><br /> Concentate on solving that instead.</p> <p>>>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.</p> <p>>-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.</p> <p>-???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant<br /> examples?</p> <p>—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~<br /> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.<br /> To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics@googlegroups.com">top-politics@googlegroups.com</a><br /> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a><br /> For more options, visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en">http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en</a><br /> -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-</p> </div></p> [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization 2006-12-02 00:31:44+0100 http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_95/index.rss http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_95/index.rss Mark Rosst <p><p>> >-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both <strong>needed number of votes from the<br /> > active voting population</strong> and <strong>needed percentage of those voters in<br /> > favor of the issue</strong>. In the above case, this refers to <strong>percentage of actual voter support</strong></p> <p>>mG: -Sounds complicated. Does all issues have thresholds from the beginning<br /> > and how are they set?</p> <p>-M: Have you seen my input field?<br /> —————————————————————————————————————--</p> <p><a class="readMore" href="#" onclick="Element.hide(this); Element.removeClassName(this.parentNode.nextSibling, 'tooLarge'); return false;">Read more… / Lire plus…</a><br /> <div class="tooLarge"></p> <p>Name <i>_</i>__________________________]</p> <p>Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]</p> <p>Optional additional representitives: <i>_</i>______________________]<br /> <i>_</i>___________________________________________________]</p> <p>Issue X Y Z<br/><br /> Vote:<br/><br /> Yes [ ] No [ ] Deliberate [ ]</p> <p>Optional delegate(s)<br /> (will default to representitives if none are selected):<br /> <i>_</i>_______________________________________]</p> <p>Decision threshold <sup class="footnote"><a href="#fn60">60</a></sup>%…<br /> (range <strong>50%+1</strong> – 70%, default 60%)</p> <p>…of a required <sup class="footnote"><a href="#fn20">20</a></sup>%<ins>5 of qualified voters<br /> (range (0% – 40%)</ins>5, default 20%+5)<br /> —————————————————————————</p> <p>-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose<br /> 50%-70%.<br/><br /> And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.</p> <p>> >>mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it.<br /> ><br /> > >-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was<br /> > implimented. As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.</p> <p>> >>mG: <del>Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as<br /> > > possible, quite a big difference..<br /> ><br /> > >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :</del>(</p> <p>>mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it.<br /> > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably<br /> > wouldn’t agree with you.</p> <p>-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves<br /> are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep?<br /> Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?</p> <p>> >-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up.<br /> > Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of society -</p> <p>>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best<br /> > handled by broad participation…</p> <p>-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and<br /> even encouraged by SD2-S.</p> <p>>mG:…and decisions taken by all.</p> <p>-M: <span class="caps">WTF</span> for?</p> <p>> >OR <span class="caps">ELSE</span>. By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.</p> <p>>mG: -Another example of non prooven BS. Either you present some evidence<br /> > for it or remain silent.</p> <p>-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and<br /> non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the<br /> revolutionary Ben Franklin.)</p> <p>> >-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption.<br /> > This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.</p> <p>>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a<br /> > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…</p> <p>-M: <span class="caps">EVERY</span> <span class="caps">SINGLE</span> <span class="caps">FORM</span> OF <span class="caps">CORRUPTION</span>, <span class="caps">WITHOUT</span> <span class="caps">EXCEPTION</span>, <span class="caps">HAS</span> <span class="caps">BEEN</span><br /> <span class="caps">CORRUPTION</span> <span class="caps">ALLOWED</span> BY <span class="caps">THE</span> <span class="caps">PEOPLE</span>.</p> <p>>mG:…so you are coming with more BS.</p> <p>-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are<br /> counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.</p> <p>>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.</p> <p>-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.</p> <p>shanti<br/><br /> Mark, Seattle WA <span class="caps">USA</span></p> <p>—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~<br /> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.<br /> To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics@googlegroups.com">top-politics@googlegroups.com</a><br /> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a><br /> For more options, visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en">http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en</a><br /> -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-</p> </div></p>