Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 25/12 06:35 +1 Re: Version 0.10
- 23/12 13:32 +1 Re: Version 0.10
- 23/12 05:27 +1 Re: Version 0.10
Latest posts
- 25/12 06:35 +1 Re: Version 0.10
- 23/12 13:32 +1 Re: Version 0.10
- 23/12 05:27 +1 Re: Version 0.10
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Version 0.10
-
What I’ve noticed is that the problem of scale does not apply to voting. It only appears with deliberation, with meeting process. If everyone can speak, and the group is large, meetings start to become long and tedious. Scale brings with it the necessity of some kind of representation, but proxy representation is not only a very old solution to the problem, it avoids elections completely. It is standard practice in share corporations that you may vote your shares directly, i.e., you can attend the Annual Meeting and vote, or you can delegate the right to vote to your proxy. We have added to this delegability, that’s what is new and untried.
Personally, I agree that a delegate is one way to scale DD. But there is another: moderation. Not the classical one, where one moderator controls the show, a democratic one, where it is votes that define what is shown or not.
But we see more to the matter of proxies than this. Proxies serve as filters. They protect the client from too much traffic, and they protect the organization from too much traffic.
A filter can act just the same. Based on votes, participants can define what level of details they want to see. There is still as much traffic, but you can easily be shielded from most.
There are attempts afoot to try to do the filtering with automated systems, but my opinion is that we are safer with people. If a proxy does not take on too many clients, the load is light.
Filtering based on votes should not be considered too automated, it relies on participants.
So, can parelemnt in this very time do such thing? It can not. At least I do not trust it at all. What I want to see is a feedback mechinism that can not be hijacked by majority or something like that. I want to see free process of networking and creating popular clusters where most fine would lead others in this proliferation process of such forum.
As you said, a “feedback” mechanism. Just like the temperature in a room, it can be easy to regulate manually when you start. It’s only when you add more rooms and more complexity, that an automatic system becomes required.
I have planned to add electoral lists, but it is a big feature and I don’t want to start it before finishing some of the smaller ones. Right now I’m modifying the way forums are displayed on the web. They currently are shown in the reverse order of their creation (last one first). I plan to use another variable: last activity. So that the most active elements will be shown first.
It’s almost done already.
Then I would like to improve the looks of the web pages. They are still too confusing for most newcomers. Any suggestions on that?
Consider an ordinary mailing list, with some moderators. The list sails along, completely open, and usually works well. But occasionally somebody trolls, spams, flames. So a moderator steps in and puts the member on moderation. This, by itself, could seem to be censorship. But if the moderator is supported by, at least, a majority, it is quite proper. What is offensive is where there is no appeal, no process whereby the decision of the moderator can be reviewed. And if you engage in debate on the list over a moderation action, it can defeat the purpose of moderation.
Electoral lists could be the solution to that problem.
At first parlement allows everybody to vote on any element (you can even vote on votes). And every participant can decide to only see or receive those elements which have reached above a threshold of their choice (a filter). But when a given number of users has been attained, there will probably be problems occurring due to the legitimacy of the votes.
Basically, at first everybody participates in the moderation democratically, but when electoral lists will be created, participants will have the possibility to choose individually whose moderation they want to follow.
Legitimacy.
And you ask me how? I can offer you our past vision:
http://kovach.web.srk.fer.hr/tiaktiv/index.php?mode=projekt_forum&m=forum&jezik=en
Yet, I believe we might go much simpler and more effective that it was our first model we developed. I hope I gave you some more information about what I believe we do really need.
It appears that in Tiaktiv, moderators serve, more or less, as proxies. Members can directly read whatever they want, but they may also routinely only see traffic that was approved by the moderator they choose. This is exactly what we expect proxies to do.
This is what an electoral list would bring, but relying not on one moderator, but on a democratic vote/moderation.
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--—---------———--~-
+1
-
At 08:21 AM 12/22/2006, echarp wrote:
Personally, I agree that a [delegable proxy] is one way to scale DD. But there is another: moderation. Not the classical one, where one moderator controls the show, a democratic one, where it is votes that define what is shown or not.
That’s not moderation, and, it seems to me, it is circular. If votes define what is shown, who sees the material so that it gets votes? When does this filtering take place? How much delay is involved?
You can set up a system where posts are rated, and there seem to be quite a few of these. Then the user can select a rating level.
But this will exclude unpopular ideas. Some very good ideas seem to be flawed at first glance. So they could get a lot of negative votes. And then they become relatively invisible. The few who read them closely enough to understand them and see the value can’t overcome the inertia of the rest….
Sure, a rating system like that would be better than nothing. But we can do much better than that….
But we see more to the matter of proxies than this. Proxies serve as filters. They protect the client from too much traffic, and they protect the organization from too much traffic.
A filter can act just the same. Based on votes, participants can define what level of details they want to see. There is still as much traffic, but you can easily be shielded from most.
Let me just say that this is like equating a swiss army knife with a pushpin. Both can make holes in objects. Echarp is looking a one narrow aspect of the problem, the traffic problem, in one direction, that is, out to the membership.
When you are deliberating, there should be a record, and it is a presumption, not always true but still important, that those who are voting on an issue have read the record. (In face-to-face meetings, they were there when the speeches were given.) In a rating system, what is the record? Is it all submissions? But, remember, many submissions will not have been seen by the members.
I am trying to make deliberation practical on a large scale. It’s really important to understand the problem.
There are attempts afoot to try to do the filtering with automated systems, but my opinion is that we are safer with people. If a proxy does not take on too many clients, the load is light.
Filtering based on votes should not be considered too automated, it relies on participants.
Sure. Better than pure automation. But are all participants equal? If you think they are, then you don’t understand how social systems work. They add weight to some participants, and for very good reasons.
There are ways to automate this process, I think Mark may have one. But my point is that we don’t need the automation, we can do very well with people. If you want to trust a machine, including how it assembles votes, and you want to trust that people, en masse, are going to give your ideas a fair hearing, fine. I don’t trust that, in fact. People are very conservative. Mark’s term is “lemmings,” and he uses the term perjoratively. I don’t. People are conservative for very good reasons. But that conservatism makes it very difficult for some new ideas to be heard. Delegable proxy, I believe, solves this problem, among others. And it is blindingly simple.
This is what an electoral list would bring, but relying not on one moderator, but on a democratic vote/moderation.
Direct democracy is very attractive, at first, until one realizes just how much work it involves. Most people don’t have time. So how can we include the people who don’t have time, how can we keep them connected so that they will quite appropriately feel, “this is my organization.” Delegable proxy is an answer to that question. Vote moderation of posts hardly begins. But, still, better than nothing….
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ 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 08:21 AM 12/22/2006, echarp wrote:
Personally, I agree that a [delegable proxy] is one way to scale DD. But there is another: moderation. Not the classical one, where one moderator controls the show, a democratic one, where it is votes that define what is shown or not.
Is it democratic that whole people by consensus delegate one person who will run the show about some exact 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
-
At 07:32 AM 12/23/2006, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
Is it democratic that whole people by consensus delegate one person who will run the show about some exact issue?
It is democratic at that moment. It will not necessarily remain so. The people may democratically create a situation is no longer democratic.
If the person retains that position as the servant of the people, with the continued consent of the people, it is definitely democratic. However, if the person has a fixed term of office, for example, what may be democratic at the time of election may turn into something else.
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ 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
-
-
-
