[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

illegale — 2006-12-04 19:34:32+0100

echarp wrote:

> Spot on, it is another forum!!! And a mailing list. And in time a chat > room. > > It aims to be a combination of all linear methods, what I call a > “linear” method being a communication where you can add content but not > remove any. A Usenet forum is such a thing, same with a newspaper, a > blog or a meeting. A wiki is not (or it will need serious thinking to > make it so), but there could be links to such a beast :)

OK.

> > So the interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we > > should concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again > > it’s the eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t > > interest users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions > > and criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough. > > Definitely! > > Being a mailing list, a parlement instance could just duplicate any > number of other mailing lists there are on the web. Trouble is that any > answer or vote made directly on parlement will not be forwarded to the > original mailing list (this is what is done with top-politics, see > http://leparlement.org/top-politics *).

Read more… / Lire plus…

OK.

> > However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So > > the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more > > programmers, isn’t it? > > There are PGP signatures to work on, chat and irc connections, ordering > by activity instead of creation, image uploading in a post (one can > already send an image or any other file in a mail), automatic database > creation when an instance is set up, P2P cluster automatic creation, > speed optimisations, design, colors…

OK. > > And lots and lots of testing!

OK.

So, what do these OKs have with request for ELs? What I need to notice is that here comes Markus who whishes to start the whole process on with new aproach. As long as there is not product I need and as long as I do not notice your will to work harder on that before there is hudreds of users of leparelemnt, I have to back up Markus’s wish in order of having more chance to get a product I need. Why is that happening? What should I do in order of optimising the work of this group?

ATB;
Gale

ATB,
Gale

> * there can’t be answers because it would require the parlement’s > participants to also exist on the google group > > echarp – http://leparlement.org

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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: Parlement Version 0.9

illegale — 2006-12-04 18:18:15+0100

Serge wrote:

> Well I agree that for the moment Parlement isn’t that exceptional. To > my non-specialist eyes, it’s looks like just another forum. So the > interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we should > concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again it’s the > eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t interest > users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions and > criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.

In this very time I can push parlement to that new gravity center in Croatian political cyberspace. Yet, for this I need a product. There is several people who might easily recognise the usefullnes of this transparent, open media based on common equality.

Yet, I need a product as I said.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> I would suggest, in regards to content, that if feeds could be inserted > in the forum coming from relevant city councils, parliaments, > organizations, on their debates and upcoming legislation under > deliberation, it could become a whole lot more relevant to a lot of > people. Especially if online collaboration, wiki-like could be > integrated not only for proposals but for posted documents/attachments. > A xwiki meets parlement type of thing (how about no sleep for two years > Emmanuel?). Add to this a robust method of voting, and the whole thing > should already be well under way.

These users wont come up to parlement and say, hey lets develop it. They are consumers, they want use. At least I see this that way. It might be I am wrong, of course.

> However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So > the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more > programmers, isn’t it?

Regular thing is that people get interested in software in the moment they find use of it, so they become attracted in developing it further Maybe this software is usefull for these people and if that is true, software developers will come indeed.

Yet, the example of Markus is that he is rather starting new project based on software base he prefers, than working on a concept he would need to adopt first. And that is what regularly happens before turning point (wideer affirmation of software). I am afraid, it is up to software originator to create basic product and after that the rest is history :-)

ATB,
Gale > > Serge

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 21:43:22+0100

>ec: -1 You consider “people” lemmings and the enemy of democracy, yet democracy > is “rule by the people”, hence, you are not really a democrat.

-M: No, only most of the people are lemmings. SD2-S allows the lemmings to select non-lemmings.

> > >ec: +1 of course. How many points until he reconsiders his positions? > > M: What points? I keep whupping you as evidenced by your dodging.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>ec: You are a disagreeable person,…

-M: I am very lovable. :-) I think that you would like me in person.

>ec: …so excuse me for not enjoying your company.

-M: You did dodge again. Are you being the best Emmanuel that you can be?

> > > How many points until he does not consider himself as the master of this > > > forum?

> >M: I am the master because I am the one who promotes the most truth.

>ec: See what I mean by “disagreeable”? Mark, you are not a person I appreciate, and I do not consider you of interest.

-M: My techniques are powerful. Don’t you find power to be interesting?
See, I am a mind control expert.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

echarp — 2006-11-25 11:42:54+0100

-1

You consider “people” lemmings and the enemy of democracy, yet democracy is “rule by the people”, hence, you are not really a democrat.

> > +1 of course. How many points until he reconsiders his positions? > > What points? I keep whupping you as evidenced by your dodging.

You are a disagreeable person, so excuse me for not enjoying your company.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> > How many points until he does not consider himself as the master of this > > forum? > > I am the master because I am the one who promotes the most truth.

See what I mean by “disagreeable”? Mark, you are not a person I appreciate, and I do not consider you of interest.

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 03:56:43+0100

>ec: +1 of course. How many points until he reconsiders his positions?

-M: What points? I keep whupping you as evidenced by your dodging.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>ec: How many points until he does not consider himself as the master of this > forum?

-M: I am the master because I am the one who promotes the most truth.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 01:58:29+0100

> > >ec: And you have given no arguments on why “people” should be removed > > > from politics.

> > Agreed. Nor have you, yet you want to limit people’s choice, > > such as not giving the individual voter the choice to have both DD > > and RD inputs simultaneously.

>ec: I think I have, and in fact you did acknowledge it. Well, you said yes then no (how coherent of you). Direct participation is more potent, more legitimate, than indirect one.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: So your position is:

“people” should be removed from politics because direct participation is more potent, more legitimate, than indirect one*? (Read the words above carefully.)

Are you sure that I am the incoherent one?

> > > Not only that, but at the beginnings of this group you were > > > repeating over and over, an analysis based on wrong information (the > > > French “terror” being a Direct Democratic thing…). > > I presented other examples too.

>ec: Oh, like a study which actually destroys Representative Democracy and > has no relationship with DD?

-M: What is that?

>ec: What examples against DD do you really have? I have plenty against RD.

-M: Your V-V-V is RD. So the debate isn’t RD vs DD. (Unless you want to renounce V-V-V.) I just want to know why the V-V-V voter has the choice of RD or DD, instead of RD and/or DD. Again, why?

> > > Saying and repeating that people are lemmings is not an argument.

> > But it is a founding fact that justifies republicanism.

>ec: Oh, now it is a fact? By what miracle, your saying? > You think anybody will consider you an authority on that? I don’t. And I > claim that nobody will!!!

-M: I am the authority because my points win as evidenced by the dodge-monkeyism.

> > > > With an innately RD system like SD2-S, > > > > there is the guarantee of scalability. > > > > The two main differences between V-V-V and SD2-S: > > > > 1. V-V-V’s has a single proxy vs SD2-S multiple proxies, > > > > 2. V-V-V has a manditory DD overide of RD, > > > > by contrast SD2-S gives the voter RD and/or DD, > > > > this makes a more interconnected trust network. > > > > No one has yet justified this manditory override from a > > > > philosophical nor a technical perspective. > > >ec: Lomax has explained it to you in clear words: it is not mandatory, > > > it is each participant’s choice. > >M: Meaning that if the voter chooses DD, this manditorilly overrides > > RD. Or if the voter chooses RD, this manditorilly overrides DD. > > Again, for the thousandth time: WHY?

>ec: Because in a simple system, unlike what you have in mind, we care about > decisions. A participant can directly vote if he so choose. His choice.

-M: This means that the RD voter now isn’t providing DD data, and the DD voter isn’t providing RD data. :-(
The DD voter isn’t giving data about his administrators and/or legislators of choice.
Why this fuck’n limitation? Why, why, fuck’n why?

>ec: No invention like multi proxy, generalist, specialist, default proxy, > deliberation threshold (your excuse of a direct participation),…

-M: Everyone participates. Its only the decisiveness of this participation that is sometimes filtered.

>ec:…director, rank. In fact, your byzantine system is complex by design.

-M: All systems are complex by the time they reach administration. Your simpler V-V-V would require more complexity outside of the V-V-V program than would SD2-S.
My idea with SD2-S is to minimize overall complexity.

>ec: You want it to be difficult and remote. Not only is your online personality disagreeable, but your design is purposefully inelegant!

-M: It is purposefully reasonable to minimize outside complexity.

> > By contrast, with SD2-S, the voter can have both RD and DD inputs - > > infact, this is prefered.

>ec: And they can fill a ten element form with inputs he won’t understand and > care about.

-M: Maybe so, but atleast SD2-S would get more data from him than would V-V-V. This data then gets filtered to yield expert decisions.

>ec: It’s simple, there are decisions to be taken and we are designing a > democratic decision making system. Who is most legitimate to take those > decisions? Well well well, the demo of course.

-M: Agreed.

>ec: And what will be more legitimate, a direct or an indirect participation? > Direct of course.

-M: Presumptuous. This assumes that the choice is direct vs. indirect participation.
Where the fuck did you get this?
The real choices are:

direct and indirect participation vs.
direct and indirect-participation-arbitrarily-filtered-to-one-markov chain vs.
direct-participation-arbitrarily-filtered-to-one-markov chain

>ec: You’ll probably invent “facts” against Direct Democracy. Any one we can > verify and which won’t be a misinterpretation due to your lack of > reading skills? Anything but baseless assertions?

-M: I have better descriptions.

> > > > > – Electoral lists > > > > > > > > With SD2-S, all voters would be on this list. > > > > > > This means that you do not understand what is the point of electoral > > > lists. In one word: legitimacy. > > > > Since SD2-S is a more participatory system than competing systems, > > everyone is a representitive candidate. > > This is legitimate because it encourages participation.

>ec: Your direct participation is limited to the deliberation threshold, this > is a pathetic excuse of DD.

-M: So is your RD V-V-V. You aren’t making a comparison.

>ec: To say “more participatory” while proposing such a byzantine and remote > system designed so that the “common people” won’t directly take > decisions is a flagrant incoherence. Stupid.

-M: Its more particapatory because there would be more reps, and people would be encouraged to organize with those of similar ranks and interest domains.

>ec: Or will you dare to claim that indirect participation is more > participatory than direct one???

-M: Yes, my way it is.

>ec: A decision making system like democracy is about decisions. You want to > remove people from them,…

-M: Emmanuel, I suspect that you understand PageRank. The specialist decisions are accumulative,
meaning that people’s voting power is preserved as it cascades up the Markov chains.
People’s votes are not lost as with non-Markov algorithms. I think that you understand this.

>ec:…to concentrate on a few chosen directors,…

-M: That is SD2, a generalist system. SD2-S is a specialist system that uses PageRank instead of counting the votes of general directors.

>ec: this is contrary to the very purpose of democracy: rule of the demo. Your suspicions, despites and insults toward the common people make you an enemy of democracy.

-M: Lemmings are the enemy of democracy as evidenced by the Bushmonkey.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 01:04:23+0100

>G: +1 Its been a while since last time I read Marks posts. To many ad > hominems,…

-M: Where?

>G:…proving inconsistency for a sake of inconsistency, …

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: Where?

>G: no goal orientation. Too bad. ATB, Gale

-M: I’ll get there. Right now I am just responding to people.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 01:01:39+0100

>S: Mark, Your post contains no practical suggestion or constructive part.

-M: Agreed.

>S: Failing that, I don’t see a point in discussing any further.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: You have practical suggestions?

>S: It’s really a shame because your very presence on the group shows you have a > similar concern to ours in bringing more participation to the political process. > Serge

-M: WTF are you doing?

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

echarp — 2006-11-24 19:59:23+0100

> Well I agree that for the moment Parlement isn’t that exceptional. To > my non-specialist eyes, it’s looks like just another forum.

Spot on, it is another forum!!! And a mailing list. And in time a chat room.

It aims to be a combination of all linear methods, what I call a “linear” method being a communication where you can add content but not remove any. A Usenet forum is such a thing, same with a newspaper, a blog or a meeting. A wiki is not (or it will need serious thinking to make it so), but there could be links to such a beast :)

Read more… / Lire plus…

> So the interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we > should concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again > it’s the eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t > interest users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions > and criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.

Definitely!

Being a mailing list, a parlement instance could just duplicate any number of other mailing lists there are on the web. Trouble is that any answer or vote made directly on parlement will not be forwarded to the original mailing list (this is what is done with top-politics, see http://leparlement.org/top-politics *).

> However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So > the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more > programmers, isn’t it?

There are PGP signatures to work on, chat and irc connections, ordering by activity instead of creation, image uploading in a post (one can already send an image or any other file in a mail), automatic database creation when an instance is set up, P2P cluster automatic creation, speed optimisations, design, colors…

And lots and lots of testing!

there can’t be answers because it would require the parlement’s participants to also exist on the google group

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Serge — 2006-11-24 19:37:22+0100

Well I agree that for the moment Parlement isn’t that exceptional. To my non-specialist eyes, it’s looks like just another forum. So the interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we should concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again it’s the eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t interest users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions and criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.

I would suggest, in regards to content, that if feeds could be inserted in the forum coming from relevant city councils, parliaments, organizations, on their debates and upcoming legislation under deliberation, it could become a whole lot more relevant to a lot of people. Especially if online collaboration, wiki-like could be integrated not only for proposals but for posted documents/attachments. A xwiki meets parlement type of thing (how about no sleep for two years Emmanuel?). Add to this a robust method of voting, and the whole thing should already be well under way.

However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more programmers, isn’t it?

Serge

Read more… / Lire plus…