Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (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
- 03/05 14:48 +3 Re: Time for some action?
- 03/08 02:11 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 02/08 02:30 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 28/07 03:25 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 28/07 02:36 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 27/07 00:36 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 26/07 03:39 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 11/07 00:17 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 10/07 11:14 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 04/07 20:26 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
Latest posts
- 03/08 02:11 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 02/08 02:30 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 28/07 03:25 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 28/07 02:36 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 27/07 00:36 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 26/07 03:39 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 11/07 00:17 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 10/07 11:14 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 04/07 20:26 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 03/07 17:04 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Time for some action?
-
Hello all,
Agree that has been a lots of talking, a good suggestions with a short status update what each of us plan to do now.
All of us have there own agenda, myself for an example are doing some small updates on the infrastructure for my project Direct Democracy Portal to support EJB3 development.
Will also catch up on some of the posts to this group that I want to answer, will try to
answer http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/268 in a bit more detail to cover how I plan to setup www.directdemocracyparty.net once the code actually does something useful..One thing we could do together is to better define the scope of the discussion that takes place here, less talking and more code and documentation updates :)
Best regards
Pether Sorling
+1
-
pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Hello all, > > Agree that has been a lots of talking, a good suggestions with a short > status update what each of us plan to do now. > > All of us have there own agenda, myself for an example are doing some > small updates on the infrastructure for my project Direct Democracy > Portal to support EJB3 development.
OK. Yet, as long as you proposed it, wating for you to follow, as long as I absolutely agree with this.
> Will also catch up on some of the posts to this group that I want to > answer, will try to > answer http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/268 in a bit > more detail to cover how I plan to setup www.directdemocracyparty.net > once the code actually does something useful..
OK.
> One thing we could do together is to better define the scope of the > discussion that takes place here, less talking and more code and > documentation updates :)
We definitelly need form for discussion that wont make so much noise as we can notice around in this moment.
ATB,
Gale> > Best regards > Pether Sorling
+1
-
So how to proceed now then?
I suggest that we decide upon a voting system, start can be just 50%+1, in order to be able to make some further decisions. Anyone aginast that and why in that case?
+1
-
MG wrote:
> So how to proceed now then? > I suggest that we decide upon a voting system, start can be just 50%+1, > in order to be able to make some further decisions. > Anyone aginast that and why in that case?
I have to comment this.
Group decision making scenario is what I find pretty esential in the moment there are only several of us, needing strong consolidation to endure issues that are in front of us.
This means working on consensus, removing cons with arguments (there are no 1000 of us that would make concesus aiming pretty hard thing). Of course, if some of us find this stuff too heavy, having too many cons, that could actually mean the group in that status has no possiblitiy of consolidation which is important issue in political work, needing separation of initiatives.
Of course, as long as I am advocator of moving forward together, if other members legitimate 50%+1 model, me personaly will support it as long as the movement of the group has potenetial in opinion of Tiaktiv.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
OK consensus is good and easy to find in a small group. One way to get it is to vote and to debate pros and cons. The outcome is often consensus.
But it is not actually needed in all cases. If alternative solutions can coexist in a competetive way nobody needs to feel over ruled by a mojority.
In this case there are so many new challenges and possibilities that I see enough options for everybody involved soo far.
We have here an easier task than the formers of a new party where one and only one voting rule have to exist for example. In the case of top-politics we can solve many alternatives by simply adding them to the options list.
+1
-
Cool.
So, voting pro and cons in a way of seeing what ideas have the strongest base, as we did it in this topic.
When we find several ideas that have strong base, then we start concensus approaching stuff. Right?
Anyway, this stuff seems will work fine in this moment.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
Here is a suggestion, a simple and very basic one: to each post each of us can reply with one of the following things:
- +1
- 0
- -1
The original author is of course considered as a +1 unless otherwise stated, and every one can change their mind at any time.
This is used on many mailing lists, Apache among others, and is quite easy to manage on such a small group as ours. For the time being it could be useful as a consultative process.
What do you think?
(you can reply with a +1/0/-1 and any comment you wish to do to explain and/or promote your opinion).
Whatever the result, it is an ad-hoc process, if it is used it is in place, otherwise it is simply forgotten. It does not require full participation or to be done on each and every post.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 04:42:35AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> So, voting pro and cons in a way of seeing what ideas have the > strongest base, as we did it in this topic.
+3
-
+1 !
In PHPbb for instance there is also a simple voting function if people
wan’t anonymity or if we get tired on counting votes manually.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> +1 ! > In PHPbb for instance there is also a simple voting function if people > wan’t anonymity or if we get tired on counting votes manually.
A little bit off topic? Why should anyone have anonimity when working on the public issues? If he is not ready to say what he thinks in public due to the any reason, then his opinion is not the worthy to be acknowledged by others. Right?
ATB;
Gale
+1
-
Maybe not an issue now but when we are 50 or more. It should be acceptable for this kind of task.
A anonymous voter will not be able to create a new user in order to double his votes, this is something else.
Only his particular vote shall be anonymous.
If we want to make anonymous postings it is OK also with a sub user.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> Maybe not an issue now but when we are 50 or more. It should be > acceptable for this kind of task. > A anonymous voter will not be able to create a new user in order to > double his votes, this is something else. > Only his particular vote shall be anonymous. > If we want to make anonymous postings it is OK also with a sub user.
I am not willing to let majority of pussies who do not have even guts to claim publicly their attitudes to rule over me.
Second things of course is responsibilitiy of ones decisions which can not be found out it the process is not done completly transparent.
+1
-
05/05/06 07:27
Portfolios of ranked proposals.
>mG:[…] A anonymous voter will not be able to create a new user in order to double his votes, this is something else. Only his particular vote shall be anonymous. If we want to make anonymous postings it is OK also with a sub user.
>G: I am not willing to let majority of pussies who do not have even guts to claim publicly their attitudes to rule over me.
-M: Let people be chicken-shit wussies if they want to be.(In many places in the world, people SHOULD be scared to voice a controversial opinion. Also, people may just want to be controversial just to stir debate, and may not actually support their ‘opinion’ and/or proposal.)
So I say let people have psudeonyms if they want, and let public-people endorse the proposals if they choose. A highly articulate public-person may have the confidence to endorse a controversial opinion, confidence that most may not have.
>G: Second things of course is responsibilitiy of ones decisions which can not be found out it the process is not done completly transparent.
-M: There is not need to be accountable with the creation of a proposal, but the endorsement of a proposal could have accountability. I imagine that an SD2-based system could have publicly-ranked-people with portfolios of the proposals that they have created, modified, critiqued and/or endorsed. To gain rank, I imagine that one would want to have a portfolio of several proposals that are either popular, or are gaining popularity of the highly ranked.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
The problem of the chicken-shit wussies is that they do not represent any power. People who are delegated by that sort of base actually do not have true support meaning that ther declarative power is not their true power which is not good for legitimation of their decision by minorities that hold the power and that destabilises the system.
In other words, if someone decides to overtorn that system, he will be in position to do so, as long as that system has no true power within it. I do not look forward for such a system, I am looking forward for the system that will replace hypocricy with exact ratios that are legitimated by default.
+1
-
>G: The problem of the chicken-shit wussies is that they do not represent any power. People who are delegated by that sort of base actually do not have true support meaning that ther declarative power is not their true power which is not good for legitimation of their decision by minorities that hold the power and that destabilises the system. […]
-M: I don’t see the issue being the ‘chicken-shit wussies’ – I see the issue being the mechanisms, such as psudonyms, that they would use.
Having a psudonym system would allow someone to attack their own proposal – a Platonic dialog with themselves – this would increase the versality in which people could communicate controversial proposals.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Mark wrote:
> >G: The problem of the chicken-shit wussies is that they do not represent any power. People who are delegated by that sort of base actually do > not have true support meaning that ther declarative power is not their > true power which is not good for legitimation of their decision by > minorities that hold the power and that destabilises the system. […] > > -M: I don’t see the issue being the ‘chicken-shit wussies’ – I see the > issue being the mechanisms, such as psudonyms, that they would use. > > Having a psudonym system would allow someone to attack their own > proposal – a Platonic dialog with themselves – this would increase the > versality in which people could communicate controversial proposals. > > shanti > Mark, Seattle WA USA
Yet. You have to have in the mind that this is politics, not debate club. There is some difference between these two terms.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
> -M: I don’t see the issue being the ‘chicken-shit wussies’ – I see the issue being the mechanisms, such as psudonyms, that they would use. Having a psudonym system would allow someone to attack their own proposal – a Platonic dialog with themselves – this would increase the versality in which people could communicate controversial proposals.
>G: Yet. You have to have in the mind that this is politics, not debate club. There is some difference between these two terms.
-M: The idea here is to get as many ideas out there as possible, then have quality filtering. Let children and imbulciles, and criminals post if they want.
When people have SD2 ranks, they can put their favorite posts into their portfolios, and the post can aquire the rank of the highest rank of whoever endorses it.
This is quality filtering.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Also AD wan’ts quality filtering of posts and proposals/issues.
Both on rank of posts and/or of originator.
+1
-
>mG: Also AD wan’ts quality filtering of posts and proposals/issues. Both on rank of posts and/or of originator.
-M: Is there accumulative voting like with EC-D and SD2?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Yes, the more good ranks from readers, the higher in the list.
But the voter decides if he agrees with the others to vote for the
proposal ofcourse.
+1
-
>mG: Yes, the more good ranks from readers, the higher in the list. But the voter decides if he agrees with the others to vote for the proposal ofcourse.
-M: So the voters vote for the other voters?(If so, this is RD.) How many layers deep does this go? PageRank is potentially infinate.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>-M: So the voters vote for the other voters?(If so, this is RD.) How many layers deep does this go? PageRank is potentially infinate.
-No. what I mean with rank here is that as in many forums today you have the possibility to put a rank on a person or his postings.
Same system can be used for ranking proposals to be voted about. On the other hand puting a vote against a proposal usually means the same thing.
Maybe it would be meaningful to put a low a rank on a proposal if there are more than 2 alternatives to vote on.
+1
-
>-M: So the voters vote for the other voters?(If so, this is RD.)How many layers deep does this go? PageRank is potentially infinate.
>mG: No. what I mean with rank here is that as in many forums today you have the possibility to put a rank on a person or his postings. Same system can be used for ranking proposals to be voted about.
-M: NO! Why don’t you understand this yet? Voting for proposals can’t be accumulative because proposals can’t vote for each other, while reps can.
This gives much more interesting centrality data, because the chains of endorsement can be followed from one to the next. Your system abritrarily ends this process with single connection data. Why?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>Your system abritrarily ends this process with single connection data. Why?
-Please write something understandable. How can issues (don’t give me the ususal BS that DD and issues are L-based etc etc) be anything else than a single data, in the end?
Do you mean that an endless discussion, like this one, is a better output..?
Isn’t your goal in this discussion only a single very basic one, that I shall confess to SD2 and forget about every other Lemming-based idea in the world?
+1
-
>M: Your system abritrarily ends this process with single connection data. Why?
>mG-Please write something understandable. How can issues (don’t give me the ususal BS that DD and issues are L-based etc etc) be anything else than a single data, in the end?
-M: No! That is not the end. The end is either a quality DECISION or not.
>mG: Do you mean that an endless discussion, like this one, is a better output..?
-M: No, I said “your system abritrarily ends this process…” meaning this process of representing their opinion can either be with themself, other(s) or both. “…with single connection data. Why?” And if its with other(s), why is the representation process arbitrarily stopped at this step? Why can’t the representation chain continue for several steps?
>mG: Isn’t your goal in this discussion only a single very basic one, that I shall confess to SD2 and forget about every other Lemming-based idea in
the world?
-M: Yes, or explain why you support what seem like arbitrary limits in your system.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>-M: No, I said “your system abritrarily ends this process…” meaning this process of representing their opinion can either be with themself, other(s) or both. “…with single connection data. Why?” And if its with other(s), why is the representation process arbitrarily
stopped at this step? Why can’t the representation chain continue for several steps?
-Maybe you are very slow on getting things, but I do believe in DD (prefferably AD), not RD. So tell me a way of making that better, because you will never persuade me on thinking that RD is better.
>-M: Yes, or explain why you support what seem like arbitrary limits in your system.
-I’m trying all the time but you are not listening. Everytime a proof the superiority of DD you come dragging with the L-word. Boring is an understatement.
+1
-
07/06/06 02:06
L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
>-M: No, I said “your system abritrarily ends this process…” meaning this process of representing their opinion can either be with themself, other(s) or both. “…with single connection data. Why?” And if its with other(s), why is the representation process arbitrarily stopped at this step? Why can’t the representation chain continue for several steps?
>mG: -Maybe you are very slow on getting things, but I do believe in DD (prefferably AD), not RD. So tell me a way of making that better, because you will never persuade me on thinking that RD is better.
-M: The goal isn’t for me to convince you that RD is better than DD. Its for you to convince me that L-RD and L-DD(which AD is both) is better than real-RD(SD2).
I already showed that you arbitrarily limit the representation chains.
>-M: Yes, or explain why you support what seem like arbitrary limits in your system.
>mG-I’m trying all the time but you are not listening. Everytime a proof the superiority of DD you come dragging with the L-word.
-M: Focus – arbitrary limits in the representation chains – why? (No L-word here.)
Why should the inital voter have the option to pass on voting power, but this voting power can’t be passed on from one rep to the next?(the technical capability is there). Why this LIMIT?
(This is L-RD and L-DD vs SD2 and even an accurately concieved EC-D - Emmanuel STILL has yet to explain how he can have accumulative voting without PageRank. He seems to want to get me into a Euro-Lemming forum where he would have less accountability than among his peers here.)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>-M: The goal isn’t for me to convince you that RD is better than DD. Its for you to convince me that L-RD and L-DD(which AD is both) is better than real-RD(SD2).
-Don’t tell me my goals. I think I know yours but if I’m wrong you are free to correct.
>-M: Focus – arbitrary limits in the representation chai
-
-
07/06/06 02:06
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
05/05/06 07:27
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-