Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 30/11 21:14 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 30/11 11:57 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 22:49 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 11:43 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 28/11 22:50 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:46 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:28 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 25/11 00:42 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 23:47 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 14:04 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Latest posts
- 30/11 21:14 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 30/11 11:57 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 22:49 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 11:43 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 28/11 22:50 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:46 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:28 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 25/11 00:42 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 23:47 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 14:04 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
-
[…] >>mg: Basicly: there is no such thing as a “right” decision to all. >-M: Your decision is that there can be no ‘right’ decision? Then can your decision be right? Another one? :-(
When are the contradictions going to stop?-M: Karl, you dodged this. I just got you. How about conceding?
Just say"OK Mark, you fucked-me-up."
I won’t make fun of you.
I will call you a ‘sport’.>>mg: Only more or less OK, decisions to individuals. >-M: Bull-fuck’n-shit. >>mg: This is why DD is superior to RD, once the citizens have the tools needed. Because >whom concerned will take the decisions. >-M: In democracy, it is the majority which is concerned. >And this majority opinion is best measured by a deep-RD-algorithm, >one that can render expert opinion. This is also republicanism. >>mG: To make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia, worthy a dictator only.
>-M: So YOU say, both elitely and utopisticly? You are now the dictator, who will speak >for the majority on this issue? More contradictions? :-(
>mG: …bla bla….>you are now the dictator…No, expressing an opinion can never be dicatorship.
-M: ‘…expressing an opinion…’ is fine, but you have this opinion’s context outside of a democratic context. You want your opinion to be decisive without calling a vote for it. You said "To make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia", instead of saying: “I think we should vote to determine if to make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia." >mG: More false arguments from a bad debater! :-(
-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.
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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
At 01:36 PM 11/14/2006, Mark wrote: >-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.
In his opinion.
We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their own debate skill. Debate is a communication art, and it is judged by its effect on an audience. Shall we vote?
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
Lomax wrote: >Mark wrote: […] > >-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.
>L: In his opinion.
-M: If not, then show where my points are wrong.
>L: We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their own debate skill.
-M: I judge myself to be a good debater. Do you debate otherwise? If so, then do you debate for your own debating skills?
>L: Debate is a communication art,…
-M: Debate is about being right, and using the right rule structures.
>L:…and it is judged by its effect on an audience.
-M: No, its judged by the truth of the points.
>L: Shall we vote?
-M: Sure. I vote that my points are all true. I welcome ANYONE to vote that ANY of my points are untrue.
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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
I vote that ALL your points about lemminghood are untrue. You are mixing the well know flaws of RD with your own ideas of DD, giving nonsence.
So there, you are uncorrect.
But as Lomax points out, debating is not about beeing correct, it’s about convincing people.
And you seldom convince, Mark.
You have to improve on your debating skills if you want better results in your selling of SD2.
One way is to stop being uncorrect, another is to listen to others arguments and accept them instead of stating them to be “lemmings words”.—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
>mg: I vote that ALL your points about lemminghood are untrue.
-M: I did show a post “Proof of Lemmingism”. Did you read it?
>mg: You are mixing the well know flaws of RD with your own ideas of DD, giving nonsence. So there, you are uncorrect. But as Lomax points out, debating is not about being correct, it’s about convincing people.
-M: I haven’t been convinced of this. :-)
>mg: And you seldom convince, Mark.
-M: Nor do you, but again, convincing is not my job. Being right is my job.
>mg: You have to improve on your debating skills if you want better results in your selling of SD2.
-M: Fuck selling SD2. I want to be right about it.
>mg: One way is to stop being uncorrect, another is to listen to others arguments and accept them instead of stating them to be “lemmings words”.
-M: Have I been unfair with anyone? If so, this would be a major problem.
Can you show any examples?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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
>-M: I did show a post “Proof of Lemmingism”. Did you read it?
-The number you have blamed lemminghood for the election of any corrupt rep is uncountable.
And the number of times you have taken that as a evidence for failure of any attempts whasoever of DD are even more uncountable.>>mg: And you seldom convince, Mark.
>-M: Nor do you, but again, convincing is not my job. Being right is my job.
-Let’s leave that to others, but most of the times I see you tiring out someone thinking that a debate with you can lead to anything. Being right with wrong conclusions is not worth so much.
>-M: Have I been unfair with anyone? If so, this would be a major problem.
Can you show any examples?-Just make a search for “Mark” and the word “Lemming”. All problems you can think of is because of lemminghood or corruption basicly.
This is not being right, it is stupid and single tracked.—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
> >-M: I did show a post “Proof of Lemmingism”. > Did you read it?
> mG: The number you have blamed lemminghood for the election of any corrupt > rep is uncountable. And the number of times you have taken that as a evidence for failure > of any attempts whasoever of DD are even more uncountable.
-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: And you seldom convince, Mark. > >-M: Nor do you, but again, convincing is not my job. Being right is my job.
>mG: Let’s leave that to others,…
-M: Why? I want to have the honor and burden of being right.
>mG:…but most of the times I see you tiring out someone thinking that a debate with you can lead to anything.
-M: If a lemming doesn’t concede to truth, my technique is to push him to exhastion.
This uses the lemming as an example to others.>mG: Being right with wrong conclusions is not worth so much.
-M: How can someone be right with the wrong conclusions?
> >-M: Have I been unfair with anyone? > If so, this would be a major problem. > Can you show any examples?
>mG: Just make a search for “Mark” and the word “Lemming”. All problems you can think of is because of lemminghood or corruption basicly.
-M: I asked about unfairness toward those I am communicating with. You now seem to be discussing my position on Lemmingism.
>mG: This is not being right, it is stupid and single tracked.
-M: Lets examine this: “All problems you can think of is because of lemminghood or corruption basicly.”
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.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?
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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
>-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.
-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.—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
> >-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%.>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—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
>-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,…
>> >-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.—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
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.
-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—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
>>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.
>>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.—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-