[top-politics] Re: Question for Mark

[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.

Mark — 2006-06-01 04:48:46+0200

> > > >G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed.

> > > -M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen.

> > >G: It seems it does not in this very time at least.

> > -M: Then there is no definable collective. We are merely individuals and not a team.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> >G: We moved from yahoo to google with no SD2. How is that possible? No commonly acknowledged voting procedure at all and we made decision? How, Mark? Or that part is not esential in this very moment?

> -M: We moved as individuals.(Our internal algorithms and their hierarchies may be similar to PageRank/SD2.)

>G: Does it really matter was it individual/group moving if we succeeded in our group intention?

-M: It was individual intention. The only way you can know ‘group’ intention is by first defining what that ‘group’ is in a measurable way.
If this measure isn’t centrality algorithm based, what else would it be?
Again, back to centrality algorithms.

> -M: What people? Give me as many people as you can. All I need are > their votes(with my new SD2, the algorithm could vote for most of them! > Ha! “The computer will vote for you!” – how is that for a marketing > tactic?(for those who are scared by this, the algorithm would NEVER > vote for the top guy, it simply linearizes the rank distributions.))

>G: Would you help me in getting you the people? In that way we can do it sooner and better.

-M: Give me Ruby code with SD2 features, and I will be your SLAVE.

Imagine this:
A website called “Solidarity Systems” with the web address: “www.solisys.org” The host would be http://www.bluehost.com/
It would run “Ruby on Rails”, “Depot”, and “WEBrick”.

When people register, they would be provided with two default representitives that they would be encouraged to replace as soon as possible. They could be provided with a window of randomly selected voters by which the new voter could read through their public portfolios before deciding on their favorite representitives.

A person’s voting account would be secured -
I may even use a modified shopping cart or similar scaffolding to build my code on.

> >G: You do not have to accept it, of course. You might start programing in Ruby, if you get a good code, maybe I will use it > also. In the other hand, Emmanuel and Markus might do it as long as > they might realize it is their direct interest to test it in larger > community.

> -M: No matter who does the coding, community testing is manditory.

>G: Absolutelly. I suppose cyber community is the one that breakes the ice in this story.

-M: OK. I have a plan brewing.

> >G: By concrete mesaruble effects of these debates.

> -M: A measurement is fixed in time, it doesn’t measure the future. > You may see what seems to be a trend, but it may be a cycle instead - > measurements aren’t predictive, only MODELS are, this is why a debate > is knowable only by its theoretical merits.

>G: Models are predictable in modeled context, not in the reality. ATB, Gale

-M: ‘Predictive’ vs ‘predictable’ – different words.

The predictability of models isn’t the issue.
Models can be predictive of reality, and that reality tests models.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.

illegale — 2006-06-01 03:00:22+0200

Mark wrote:

> Mark wrote: > > > >G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed. > > > > -M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen. > > > >G: It seems it does not in this very time at least. > > > -M: Then there is no definable collective. We are merely individuals and not a team. > > >G: We moved from yahoo to google with no SD2. How is that possible? No commonly acknowledged voting procedure at all and we made decision? How, Mark? Or that part is not esential in this very moment? > > -M: We moved as individuals.(Our internal algorithms and their > hierarchies may be similar to PageRank/SD2.)

Does it really matter was it individual/group moving if we succeeded in our group intention?

> >G: PS. I suppose we agreed that SD2 starts showing its quality in the larger groups than 18. So, if you want to acknowledge SD2 by others, you will need much more people ready to test it to see its potential. This is what I am offering to you. > > -M: What people? Give me as many people as you can. All I need are > their votes(with my new SD2, the algorithm could vote for most of them! > Ha! “The computer will vote for you!” – how is that for a marketing > tactic?(for those who are scared by this, the algorithm would NEVER > vote for the top guy, it simply linearizes the rank distributions.))

Read more… / Lire plus…

Would you help me in getting you the people? In that way we can do it sooner and better.

Absolutelly. I suppose cyber community is the one that breakes the ice in this story.

> >G: By concrete mesaruble effects of these debates. > > -M: A measurement is fixed in time, it doesn’t measure the future. > You may see what seems to be a trend, but it may be a cycle instead - > measurements aren’t predictive, only MODELS are, this is why a debate > is knowable only by its theoretical merits.

Models are predictable in modeled context, not in the reality.

ATB,
Gale > shanti > Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.

Mark — 2006-05-30 23:58:09+0200

Mark wrote:

> > >G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed.

> > -M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> >G: It seems it does not in this very time at least.

> -M: Then there is no definable collective. We are merely individuals and not a team.

>G: We moved from yahoo to google with no SD2. How is that possible? No commonly acknowledged voting procedure at all and we made decision? How, Mark? Or that part is not esential in this very moment?

-M: We moved as individuals.(Our internal algorithms and their hierarchies may be similar to PageRank/SD2.)

>G: PS. I suppose we agreed that SD2 starts showing its quality in the larger groups than 18. So, if you want to acknowledge SD2 by others, you will need much more people ready to test it to see its potential. This is what I am offering to you.

-M: What people? Give me as many people as you can. All I need are their votes(with my new SD2, the algorithm could vote for most of them! Ha! “The computer will vote for you!” – how is that for a marketing tactic?(for those who are scared by this, the algorithm would NEVER vote for the top guy, it simply linearizes the rank distributions.))

>G: You do not have to accept it, of course. You might start programing in Ruby, if you get a good code, maybe I will use it also. In the other hand, Emmanuel and Markus might do it as long as they might realize it is their direct interest to test it in larger community.

-M: No matter who does the coding, community testing is manditory.

> >M: I have SD2, and I have debated against competing algorithms. This is how to do it, correct?

> >G: I do not see this dabate necesssary. I prefer reality says the answer to that question.

> -M: How is reality to be known if not by debate?

>G: By concrete mesaruble effects of these debates.

-M: A measurement is fixed in time, it doesn’t measure the future. You may see what seems to be a trend, but it may be a cycle instead - measurements aren’t predictive, only MODELS are, this is why a debate is knowable only by its theoretical merits.

> > >G: Nevertheless, I believe made my point. If you find your aproach be more rewarding one for you, keep working on that way. Maybe you succeed. Who knows?

> > -M: So now its just personal opinion? What does that do for unity and > > commonality? Shouldn’t the best debator win? If not, what other option is there?

> >G: The best by opinion of whom? ATB, Gale

> -M: The best opinion by: > 1. who you consider to have the best debate. > 2. who the defined collective of the group considers to have the best > debate. (Defining the collective requires a centrality algorithm.)

>G: So, in this moment it is to my personal opinion. Right? ATB, Gale

-M: Yes, and your ability to influence the personal opinions of others.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.

illegale — 2006-05-30 22:58:58+0200

Mark wrote:

> > >G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed. > > > -M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen. > > >G: It seems it does not in this very time at least. > > -M: Then there is no definable collective. > We are merely individuals and not a team.

Read more… / Lire plus…

We moved from yahoo to google with no SD2. How is that possible? No commonly acknowledged voting procedure at all and we made decision? How, Mark?

Or that part is not esential in this very moment? PS. I suppose we agreed that SD2 starts showing its quality in the larger groups than

So, if you want to acknowledge SD2 by others, you will need much more people ready to test it to see its potential. This is what I am offering to you. You do not have to accept it, of course. You might start programing in Ruby, if you get a good code, maybe I will use it also. In the other hand, Emmanuel and Markus might do it as long as they might realize it is their direct interest to test it in larger community.

> >M: I have SD2, and I have debated against competing algorithms. This is how to do it, correct? > > >G: I do not see this dabate necesssary. I prefer reality says the answer to that question. > > -M: How is reality to be known if not by debate?

By concrete mesaruble effects of these debates.

> > >G: Nevertheless, I believe made my point. If you find your aproach be more rewarding one for you, keep working on that way. Maybe you succeed. Who knows? > > > -M: So now its just personal opinion? What does that do for unity and > > commonality? Shouldn’t the best debator win? If not, what other option is there? > > >G: The best by opinion of whom? ATB, Gale > > -M: The best opinion by: > 1. who you consider to have the best debate. > 2. who the defined collective of the group considers to have the best > debate. > (Defining the collective requires a centrality algorithm.)

So, in this moment it is to my personal opinion. Right? ATB,
Gale

> > shanti > Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.

Mark — 2006-05-30 21:54:35+0200

> >G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed.

> -M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen.

>G: It seems it does not in this very time at least.

-M: Then there is no definable collective. We are merely individuals and not a team.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>M: I have SD2, and I have debated against competing algorithms. This is how to do it, correct?

>G: I do not see this dabate necesssary. I prefer reality says the answer to that question.

-M: How is reality to be known if not by debate?

> >G: Nevertheless, I believe made my point. If you find your aproach be more rewarding one for you, keep working on that way. Maybe you succeed. Who knows?

> -M: So now its just personal opinion? What does that do for unity and > commonality? Shouldn’t the best debator win? If not, what other option is there?

>G: The best by opinion of whom? ATB, Gale

-M: The best opinion by:

who you consider to have the best debate.
who the defined collective of the group considers to have the best debate. (Defining the collective requires a centrality algorithm.)

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.

illegale — 2006-05-30 21:24:40+0200

Mark wrote:

> >G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed. > > -M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen.

It seems it does not in this very time at least.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> I have SD2, and I have debated against competing algorithms. > This is how to do it, correct?

I do not see this dabate necesssary. I prefer reality says the answer to that question.

> >G: Nevertheless, I believe made my point. If you find your aproach be more rewarding one for you, keep working on that way. Maybe you succeed. Who knows? > > -M: So now its just personal opinion? What does that do for unity and > commonality? > Shouldn’t the best debator win? If not, what other option is there?

The best by opinion of whom?
ATB,
Gale

> > shanti > Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.

Mark — 2006-05-30 21:13:39+0200

>G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed.

-M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen. I have SD2, and I have debated against competing algorithms. This is how to do it, correct?

>G: Nevertheless, I believe made my point. If you find your aproach be more rewarding one for you, keep working on that way. Maybe you succeed. Who knows?

-M: So now its just personal opinion? What does that do for unity and commonality?
Shouldn’t the best debator win? If not, what other option is there?

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.

illegale — 2006-05-30 11:01:59+0200

Mark wrote:

> Mark wrote: > > >G: […]That way vs preaching with no exact undeniable data, with no others to > > make it politically relevant (people do not like to buy stuff that > > endangeours the whole concept thay already have… > > > M: Fuck’em. They shouldn’t have been WRONG to begin with. > > >G: OK. Fuck them. But who is the one you rely on in your mission? This group? Your SD-2 list? > > -M: I don’t know, but I am willing to test people for their worthiness. > > >G: Some lunatic who is charismatic enough to start using it for his own organisation, who will rather let your mechanism be the one, than his own thought? > > -M: This person should have enough confidence that SD2 would select him > for a director position. > > >G: What is the public you are aiming at? > > -M: I am aiming at those who respect the TRUTH enough to see the > validity of my arguments. > > > >G:…and these advances are actually removing the whole picture making these advancedd concepts not really digestible). So, I am talking about focus of action… > > > -M: Gale, I was asking you what you want that action to be: > > “1. Mark should do action X. > > 2. Mark should do action Y. > > 3. Mark should do action Z.” > > This type of format makes for testable tangibles. > > >G: Mark should work on promotion of the autopoietic site that enables the best mechanism wins. As long as Mark is a true believer in SD-2, this > for Mark means hat SD-2 will win. > > -M: I think that SD2 would win in an SD2 environment. > > >G: In the same time, Mark looses touch of subjectivity as long as he lets forces beyond his own personality and believe do the job for him, the forces that non can fid be deniable, making him gainning much more influence on the public he is aimimng at. In the same time, sharing ideas, gaining new knowledge he becomes part of some organisation that starts really to matter. Of course, this is up to Marks personal political quality to evaluates stuff in a manner of gaining higher inflcence. BTW, I do suppose you did not enter to politis becuase you find SD-2 first, but because you wanted to change this bizzare world/USA politics situation, taking SD-2 as a mechanism that will help this change. > > -M: I want meritocracy(this automaticly excludes Bushmonkeys). > > >G: Am I right about this assumption. If I am right about it, than this way is what I find be the best for you, as long as this is my starting > position for the actions on non local/croatian political level which is > important part if i want to succeed in my local politics frustration > elimination. > > -M: OK, I see the same technology applying to all scales of governance. > > > >G:…in an order to move faster on enpowerment of the concepts we share. If you would agree to take the same focus with Markus and me… > > > -M: What focus? > > >G: Political site that enables self organisation based on every single user, enabling the most lucid, most competent become relevant and > become crystalisation point of the global plitical movement towards > political informatisaiton. > > -M: :) > > I thought of a new form of PageRank – a linearizing PageRank. > > It would look at the rank distribution curve and look for the GAPS in > the distribution of rank values – the largest gaps would be filled by > sending voting power to the lower of the two adjacent values – this > would raise the value to fill the gap. > > Default votes could go toward linearizing the curve – SD2 could start > ALL voters in a compliant state be giving them default votes that they > could over-ride. > > People, what would code like this look like? > What commands would do distribution analysis like this? > > >G:…and as I can notice to other members of this list, every single > one of us would me more efficient and capable for realisation of his > own mission. This would actually mean that we stop arguing on deniable > concepts howerver they are good, but to let these concepts prove > themselves in reality. Do you think this would be a good thing for your > > mission enough to take the same path as we do? > > > -M: What path? What other option is there than having SD2 as an > > umbrella system? Are you interested in this or not? > > >G: In this very moment I am. Though, there might be CLD2SR mechanism be much better than SD2 is for global organisation. > > -M: Where are your arguments?

Common sense tells me there is no perfect thing in this world. I might be wrong , of course.

> If they aren’t explicit, I can’t defend > SD2 – this leads to entrenchments. > Not good for the field of Applied Social Network Optimization. > > >G: I am aware that that time might come. I am aware that the essence of the gtlobal movement in frnt of us is not voting mecanism, but completely new paradigm of informed political base. Do you agree with this? ATB; Gale > > -M: NO! Absolutely not! Having a mechanism for the people to be > informed alone will do very little, unless they have MOTIVATION to be > informed. > “Why the fuck should I be informed? What good will that do?” says Joe > Sixpack. > With SD2, Joe Sixpack might say: " I am intelligent, and I have some > good ideas. I even have some representitive votes which put me ‘in the > game’. I now have attention and recognized competitors. I better become > better informed to make me more competitive."

Read more… / Lire plus…

Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed.

Nevertheless, I believe made my point. If you find your aproach be more rewarding one for you, keep working on that way. Maybe you succeed. Who knows?

ATB,
Gale

> SD2 gives MOTIVATION. (The web is already a powerful tool to inform > people.) > > shanti > Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Question for Mark

illegale — 2006-05-29 12:02:29+0200

Mark wrote:

> >G: […]That way vs preaching with no exact undeniable data, with no others to > make it politically relevant (people do not like to buy stuff that > endangeours the whole concept thay already have… > > -M: Fuck’em. They shouldn’t have been WRONG to begin with.

OK. Fuck them. But who is the one you rely on in your mission? This group? Your SD-2 list? Some lunatic who is charismatic enough to start using it for his own organisation, who will rather let your mechanism be the one, than his own thought? What is the public you are aiming at?

Read more… / Lire plus…

> >G:…and these advances are actually removing the whole picture making these advancedd concepts not really digestible). So, I am talking about focus of action… > > -M: Gale, I was asking you what you want that action to be: > > “1. Mark should do action X. > 2. Mark should do action Y. > 3. Mark should do action Z.” > > This type of format makes for testable tangibles.

Mark should work on promotion of the autopoietic site that enables the best mechanism wins. As long as Mark is a true believer in SD-2, this for Mark means hat SD-2 will win. In the same time, Mark looses touch of subjectivity as long as he lets forces beyond his own personality and believe do the job for him, the forces that non can fid be deniable, making him gainning much more influence on the public he is aimimng at. In the same time, sharing ideas, gaining new knowledge he becomes part of some organisation that starts really to matter. Of course, this is up to Marks personal political quality to evaluates stuff in a manner of gaining higher inflcence.

BTW, I do suppose you did not enter to politis becuase you find SD-2 first, but because you wanted to change this bizzare world/USA politics situation, taking SD-2 as a mechanism that will help this change. Am I right about this assumption. If I am right about it, than this way is what I find be the best for you, as long as this is my starting position for the actions on non local/croatian political level which is important part if i want to succeed in my local politics frustration elimination.

> >G:…in an order to move faster on enpowerment of the concepts we share. If you would agree to take the same focus with Markus and me… > > -M: What focus?

Political site that enables self organisation based on every single user, enabling the most lucid, most competent become relevant and become crystalisation point of the global plitical movement towards political informatisaiton.

>G:…and as I can notice to other members of this list, every single

one of us would me more efficient and capable for realisation of his own mission. This would actually mean that we stop arguing on deniable concepts howerver they are good, but to let these concepts prove themselves in reality. Do you think this would be a good thing for your mission enough to take the same path as we do? > > -M: What path? What other option is there than having SD2 as an > umbrella system? Are you interested in this or not?

In this very moment I am. Though, there might be CLD2SR mechanism be much better than SD2 is for global organisation. I am aware that that time might come. I am aware that the essence of the gtlobal movement in frnt of us is not voting mecanism, but completely new paradigm of informed political base. Do you agree with this?

ATB;
Gale > > shanti > Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.

Markus Schatten — 2006-05-25 05:21:34+0200

-1

— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ Sie erhalten diese Nachricht, weil Sie Mitglied von Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com Um sich von dieser Gruppe abzumelden, senden Sie eine E-Mail an top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-