Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 11/07 00:47 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 10/07 11:17 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 04/07 20:08 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 03/07 17:12 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 16/06 23:45 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 16/06 13:06 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 14/06 22:56 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 14/06 13:01 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
Latest posts
- 11/07 00:47 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 10/07 11:17 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 04/07 20:08 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 03/07 17:12 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 16/06 23:45 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 16/06 13:06 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 14/06 22:56 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
- 14/06 13:01 +1 Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: L-AD is corrupt from the start.
-
MG wrote:
> >>-M: If the leaders were static, then ‘possibly’(leaders have been known > to turn on their own friends and family’s wishes, and serve the people > instead, as with FDR.) But in the case of SD2, the leaders could change > weekly. Imagine an SD2 director being bought, then trying to impliment > his desires “Hey guys, maybe we should move this country toward more free trade, this would help the investors.” response: “Jim, you aren’t one of us any more.” - > RANK FREE-FALL!
>mG: -I don’t beleive in it really. That anyone would accept such loose seat.
-M: The seat is only potentially loose, but a person who rises that far would know how to keep clean.
>mG: So in the end your one week will become 3 months or so.
-M: No, there is no preplanned end time. A person could maintain their position indefininately despite weekly rank recalculations.
> AD does never have these problems.
-M: AD still needs administrators, some of which are general. They have to be selected somehow, and SD2 could be used.
> -M: Also, SD2 ideally is an umbrella system, so the directors would > probably arrange issues themselves to be decided in a > decentralized/distributed manner. They could impliment a Smartocracy > system where there would be a custom set of legislators for each issue. > The directors themselves could function primarily as an executive > committee.
>mG -The only thing that is for sure is that the elite will find ways to > stay in power. It’s a natural law.
-M: And I hope that they are the benevolent elite so that they can oppose the pathological elite.
>mG: AD is better, no elite is allowed, except the choosen ones.
-M: Doink! The elite are chosen with SD2 too. You aren’t making a comparison.
>mG: But they have to vote together with the direct voters (who did not delegate the issue in question) and the best arguments will win, openly and fair.
-M: Amongst the lemmings, debates aren’t always fair. And the most rational arguements don’t always work. Witness my exchanges with Emmanuel where I identify his continual contradictions. How well does this work? Who sides with me?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>-M: Doink! The elite are chosen with SD2 too. You aren’t making a comparison.
-stupid, I am! : >mG: But they have to vote together with the direct voters (who did not delegate the issue in question) and the best arguments will win, openly and fair.
>-M: Amongst the lemmings, debates aren’t always fair. And the most rational arguements don’t always work. Witness my exchanges with Emmanuel where I identify his continual contradictions. How well does this work? Who sides with me?
-I compare then this debate with the ideas of AD, with proposals ranked by their accumulated support with unlimited voting time, and finds it better andmore effective than this debate.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >-M: Doink! The elite are chosen with SD2 too. You aren’t making a comparison.
>mG: -stupid, I am! :
-M: Option #1 SD2 – elites are chosen. Option #2 AD – elites are chosen.
No difference, therefore there is no comparison.
If you want to discuss HOW they are chosen, that is a separate issue.> >mG: But they have to vote together with the direct voters (who did not delegate the issue in question) and the best arguments will win, openly and fair.
> >-M: Amongst the lemmings, debates aren’t always fair. And the most rational arguements don’t always work. Witness my exchanges with Emmanuel where I identify his continual contradictions. How well does this work? Who sides with me?
>mG: -I compare then this debate with the ideas of AD, with proposals ranked by their accumulated support with unlimited voting time, and finds it better and more effective than this debate.
-M: I am assuming that we are much more intelligent than the general population, yet Emmanuel’s performative contradictions aren’t rallied against.
If you all can’t be worth-a-shit, how can we have high expectations of the lemmings?Again, quality filtering is needed.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>-M: I am assuming that we are much more intelligent than the general population, yet Emmanuel’s performative contradictions aren’t rallied against.
If you all can’t be worth-a-shit, how can we have high expectations of the lemmings?-Ask Sokrates…
>Again, quality filtering is needed
-Not above basic moderators rules, if we speak of free speech. On the personal level, we have alreade agreed on filtering by differnet methods in order to limit the numer of issues to be bothered about. It could be page rank on proposals, selection by SD2 pageranked persons, AD-accumulated support, area of interest or other ideas.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >-M: I am assuming that we are much more intelligent than the general > population, yet Emmanuel’s performative contradictions aren’t rallied > against. If you all can’t be worth-a-shit, how can we have high expectations of > the lemmings?
>mG: -Ask Sokrates…
-M: Exactly my point – he was killed by the lemmings.
> >M: Again, quality filtering is needed
>mG: -Not above basic moderators rules, if we speak of free speech. On the personal level, we have alreade agreed on filtering by differnet methods in order to limit the numer of issues to be bothered about. It could be page rank on proposals, selection by SD2 pageranked persons, AD-accumulated support, area of interest or other ideas.
-M:“…page rank on proposals, selection by SD2 pageranked persons…”
The only way to PageRank proposals is by PageRanking persons.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>>mG: -Ask Sokrates…
>-M: Exactly my point – he was killed by the lemmings.
-What you obviously don’t get is what happened and why. See my other comment about Sokrates trial and why it isn’t relevant.: http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/tree/browse_frm/thread/e941cafce40740d5/6e85cfdadae72ac0?rnum=71&done=%2Fgroup%2Ftop-politics%2Fbrowsefrm%2Fthread%2Fe941cafce40740d5%2Ffacc53f90e579376%3F#doc_facc53f90e579376
> >M: Again, quality filtering is needed >>mG: -Not above basic moderators rules, if we speak of free speech. On the personal level, we have alreade agreed on filtering by differnet methods in order to limit the numer of issues to be bothered about. It could be page rank on proposals, selection by SD2 pageranked persons, AD-accumulated support, area of interest or other ideas.
>-M:“…page rank on proposals, selection by SD2 pageranked persons…”
The only way to PageRank proposals is by PageRanking persons.
-You actually managed to forget the invention of Google… Shall I say a little “Doink”…
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >>mG: -Ask Sokrates… > > >-M: Exactly my point – he was killed by the lemmings. > > -What you obviously don’t get is what happened and why. See my other > comment about Sokrates trial and why it isn’t relevant.: > http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/tree/browse_frm/thread/e941cafce40740d5/6e85cfdadae72ac0?rnum=71&done=%2Fgroup%2Ftop-politics%2Fbrowsefrm%2Fthread%2Fe941cafce40740d5%2Ffacc53f90e579376%3F#doc_facc53f90e579376 > > > > >M: Again, quality filtering is needed > >>mG: -Not above basic moderators rules, if we speak of free speech. On the personal level, we have alreade agreed on filtering by differnet methods in order to limit the numer of issues to be bothered about. It could be page rank on proposals, selection by SD2 pageranked persons, AD-accumulated support, area of interest or other ideas.
> >-M:“…page rank on proposals, selection by SD2 pageranked persons…” > > The only way to PageRank proposals is by PageRanking persons. > > -You actually managed to forget the invention of Google… > Shall I say a little “Doink”…
-M: No. It is people who create the links that Google sees. These links get PageRanked in the same way that votes get PageRanked. This is RD.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-Anyway, there is no voting on persons going on in googles
servers..Only on pages.
And pages could be proposals as you know.
+1
-
-M: No. It is people who create the links that Google sees. These links get PageRanked in the same way that votes get PageRanked. This is RD.
-mG: Anyway, there is no voting on persons going on in googles servers..Only on pages. And pages could be proposals as you know.
-M: Karl, page=person; link=vote.
These are equivencies.
And as I said before, ‘proposals can’t vote for each other’.
A person/page is needed to create a link/vote.
This means that vote/link by a page/person is a vote/link to a page/person.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
