Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
Improved look, particularly the voting and writing part. Long posts and lists now truncated. Permanent login. Positioned elements. Search form (though google).
Anybody willing to test?
You all already have a login, your pseudo is your mail’s name!
echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hey,
Following all the discussion about the secrecy of votes, the discussion seems to have slowed down. Taking the last leparlement’s version, I believe we should agree on the features needed so we can have a well-defined goal.
Currently implemented features (taking leparlement as benchmark)
Upcoming features
Additional features discussed/proposed:
Please add any other features you may want to discuss, and let’s
examine the ins and outs of proposed features. A summary can be found
and enriched on the wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP_System_Definition
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
New discussion
Answer
Serge wrote:
Hey,Following all the discussion about the secrecy of votes, the discussionseems to have slowed down. Taking the last leparlement’s version, Ibelieve we should agree on the features needed so we can have awell-defined goal.Currently implemented features (taking leparlement as benchmark)- threaded forum- RSS feed for latest posts and most popular posts- login (optional password/email)- each post is also a forum- each post is also a mailing list- server replication (in real time by mail)- spam filtering (basic)-M: Rock’n!
- votes: -1, 0 or +1 – to evolve towards range voting
-M: This is very, very fucked-up.
It is too direct and encourages too much immediacy -
people can vote before discussion.
Emmanuel can have more of an V-V-V type of system with SD2-S kinds of
constraints.
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:
- avatars- personal display filter- long posts shortened for display- Personal deliberation / voting record publicly accessible for eachuserUpcoming features- posts can be positioned- voucher for anonymous pseudonym- Electoral lists
-M: With SD2-S, all voters would be on this list.
- PGP signatures- Delegations (proposed: category-specific and not only global orpunctual)- irc interaction- individual votes life span
-M: Interesting.
- web page updated in real time (chat)Additional features discussed/proposed:- Tagging of discussion subject by posters / readers- Categorization / prioritization based on tagging and post ranking(can be useful to most elements of the system including delegation,personal record, and debates)- Integration of public information to help online deliberations.Possibly a feed reporting laws under discussion and latest officialreports from the relevant elected body (city council, parliament..) bycategories of issues to all these involved in discussions on it.- Making supporting evidence available for deliberations (let usersattach documents to a discussion – documents that should be taggedand evaluated just as any other feature)- Put safeguards against cluttering in place to ensure deliberationsremain efficient. In particular, give initial approval rating to a postaccording to the number of clients represented by the person writingthe post so as to ensure access to everyone who may want to speak,while making speech through a proxy and consensus-building a moreefficient way of communicating.Please add any other features you may want to discuss, and let’sexamine the ins and outs of proposed features. A summary can be foundand enriched on the wiki:http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP_System_DefinitionBest regards, Serge
-M: I will give more comments later.
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
New discussion
Answer
- votes: -1, 0 or +1 – to evolve towards range voting-M: This is very, very fucked-up.It is too direct and encourages too much immediacy -people can vote before discussion.Emmanuel can have more of an V-V-V type of system with SD2-S kinds ofconstraints.
ec: Again, please just acknowledge our opposition: I want everybody tohave the possibility to directly participate, you don’t.-M: SD2-S is particapatory democracy, so everyone can participate. Everyone can submit proposals and everyone can vote. And everyone is a rep candidate.
ec: And you have given no arguments on why “people” should be removed frompolitics.
-M: 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: Not only that, but at the beginnings of this group you wererepeating over and over, an analysis based on wrong information (theFrench “terror” being a Direct Democratic thing…).
-M: I presented other examples too.
ec: Saying and repeating that people are lemmings is not an argument.
-M: But it is a founding fact that justifies republicanism.
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 philosophicalnor a technical perspective.
ec: Lomax has explained it to you in clear words: it is not mandatory, it iseach 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?
By contrast, with SD2-S, the voter can have both RD and DD inputs -
infact, this is prefered.
- avatars- personal display filter- long posts shortened for display- Personal deliberation / voting record publicly accessible for eachuserUpcoming features- posts can be positioned- voucher for anonymous pseudonym- Electoral lists
-M: With SD2-S, all voters would be on this list.
ec: This means that you do not understand what is the point of electorallists. In one word: legitimacy.-M: Since SD2-S is a more participatory system than competing systems, everyone is a representitive candidate. This is legitimate because it encourages participation.
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
New discussion
Answer
I think I have, and in fact you did acknowledge it. Well, you said yes then no (how coherent of you).And you have given no arguments on why “people” should be removedfrom 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 DDand RD inputs simultaneously.
Direct participation is more potent, more legitimate, than indirect one.
Oh, like a study which actually destroys Representative Democracy and has no relationship with DD?Not only that, but at the beginnings of this group you wererepeating over and over, an analysis based on wrong information (theFrench “terror” being a Direct Democratic thing…).I presented other examples too.
What examples against DD do you really have? I have plenty against RD.
Oh, now it is a fact? By what miracle, your saying?Saying and repeating that people are lemmings is not an argument.But it is a founding fact that justifies republicanism.
You think anybody will consider you an authority on that? I don’t. And I claim that nobody will!!!
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.Meaning that if the voter chooses DD, this manditorilly overridesRD.Or if the voter chooses RD, this manditorilly overrides DD.Again, for the thousandth time: WHY?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 aphilosophical nor a technical perspective.Lomax has explained it to you in clear words: it is not mandatory,it is each participant’s choice.
No invention like multi proxy, generalist, specialist, default proxy, deliberation threshold (your excuse of a direct participation), director, rank.
In fact, your byzantine system is complex by design. You want it to be difficult and remote.
Not only is your online personality disagreeable, but your design is purposefully inelegant!
By contrast, with SD2-S, the voter can have both RD and DD inputs -infact, this is prefered.
And they can fill a ten element form with inputs he won’t understand and care about.
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.
And what will be more legitimate, a direct or an indirect participation?
Direct of course.
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?
Your direct participation is limited to the deliberation threshold, this is a pathetic excuse of DD.Since SD2-S is a more participatory system than competing systems,everyone is a representitive candidate.This is legitimate because it encourages participation.This means that you do not understand what is the point of electorallists. In one word: legitimacy.- Electoral listsWith SD2-S, all voters would be on this list.
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.
Or will you dare to claim that indirect participation is more participatory than direct one???
A decision making system like democracy is about decisions. You want to remove people from them, to concentrate on a few chosen directors, 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.
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
New discussion
Answer
Hey,
Obviously mark’s stance on citizens is questionnable for many here. But isn’t this the whole point of the system, that because we do disagree in sometimes important ways, we might be able to come to practical solutions that offer a greater deal of flexibility?
So I hope I am not being rude by suggesting this, but would it be possible for you to just collaborate on whatever is possible while keeping disagreements constructive and focused on the practical features and functionnalities of a TOP system?
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
New discussion
Answer
About parlement, right now I’m working on a feature that has been asked by friends of mine: “moderated mails”.
Currently you can filter the web page and you can also receive and respond by mail to all posts, I will add a threshold to only receive the mails that get above it.
“Democratically moderated mailing lists”.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 01:10:53AM -0000, Serge wrote:
Obviously mark’s stance on citizens is questionnable for many here.Definitely, yes. But what is worse is the online personality he displays.
Yet I think everybody has a personal story, and everybody can change for the best if given the opportunity to.
Around a beer, or online in an irc chat, mark could possibly learn to appreciate democracy. But we have to do with what we have.
(democracy, rule by the demo)
But isn’t this the whole point of the system, that because we dodisagree in sometimes important ways, we might be able to come topractical solutions that offer a greater deal of flexibility?
What of the deep disagreements and disagreeable personality traits?
So I hope I am not being rude by suggesting this, but would it bepossible for you to just collaborate on whatever is possible whilekeeping disagreements constructive and focused on the practicalfeatures and functionnalities of a TOP system?
You are not being rude.
Trouble is that the disagreement is profound, and the arguments he propose amount to nothing but insults (“lemming”).
Yet he also pushes for a technical system with parts which are very much alike lomax’s and even mine’s. Shame shame shame.
What do you think?
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
New discussion
Answer
ec: And you have given no arguments on why “people” should be removedfrom 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 DDand 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.-M: So your position is:
Are you sure that I am the incoherent one?
Not only that, but at the beginnings of this group you wererepeating over and over, an analysis based on wrong information (theFrench “terror” being a Direct Democratic thing…).I presented other examples too.
ec: Oh, like a study which actually destroys Representative Democracy andhas 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 Iclaim that nobody will!!!-M: I am the authority because my points win as evidenced by the dodge-monkeyism.
M: Meaning that if the voter chooses DD, this manditorilly overridesRD. Or if the voter chooses RD, this manditorilly overrides DD.Again, for the thousandth time: WHY?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 aphilosophical nor a technical perspective.ec: Lomax has explained it to you in clear words: it is not mandatory,it is each participant’s choice.
ec: Because in a simple system, unlike what you have in mind, we care aboutdecisions. A participant can directly vote if he so choose. His choice.
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 andcare 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 ademocratic decision making system. Who is most legitimate to take thosedecisions? 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:
ec: You’ll probably invent “facts” against Direct Democracy. Any one we canverify and which won’t be a misinterpretation due to your lack ofreading skills? Anything but baseless assertions?
-M: I have better descriptions.
Since SD2-S is a more participatory system than competing systems,everyone is a representitive candidate.This is legitimate because it encourages participation.This means that you do not understand what is the point of electorallists. In one word: legitimacy.- Electoral listsWith SD2-S, all voters would be on this list.
ec: Your direct participation is limited to the deliberation threshold, thisis 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 remotesystem designed so that the “common people” won’t directly takedecisions 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 moreparticipatory than direct one???
-M: Yes, my way it is.
ec: A decision making system like democracy is about decisions. You want toremove 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
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
New discussion
Answer
+1!
Plus the optional feature of the continous vote, according to AD-algo: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_Methods
, together with the possibility of sorting proposals according to the accumulated support.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
New discussion
Answer
mG: Plus the optional feature of the continous vote, according to AD-algo:http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_Methods
, together with the possibility of sorting proposals according to the accumulated support.
-M: How about accumulated representitive support as well?
PageRank/SD2/SD2-S and other directional-Markov systems can handle this.
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
New discussion
Answer
2
From: Serge – view profile
Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 3:16 pm
Email: “Serge” <sversi…@gmail.com>
Not yet rated
Rating:
hide options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Hey,
Following all the discussion about the secrecy of votes, the discussion seems to have slowed down. Taking the last leparlement’s version, I believe we should agree on the features needed so we can have a well-defined goal.
Currently implemented features (taking leparlement as benchmark)
Upcoming features
Additional features discussed/proposed:
Please add any other features you may want to see added, and let’s discuss the ins and outs of these. This is also on the wiki: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP_System_Definition
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
New discussion
Answer
Hey,
Following all the discussion about the secrecy of votes, the discussion seems to have slowed down. Taking the last leparlement’s version, I believe we should agree on the features needed so we can have a well-defined goal.
Currently implemented features (taking leparlement as benchmark)
· threaded forum
· RSS feed for latest posts and most popular posts
· login (optional password/email)
· each post is also a forum
· each post is also a mailing list
· server replication (in real time by mail)
· spam filtering (basic)
· votes: -1, 0 or +1 – to evolve towards range voting – Voting
Method
· voucher for anonymous pseudonym – avatars – Identity Protection
Method
· personal display filter
· long posts shortened for display
· Personal deliberation / voting record publicly accessible for each
user
Upcoming features
· posts can be positioned
· Electoral lists
· PGP signatures
· Delegations (proposed: category-specific and not only punctual for
each debate)
· irc interaction
· individual votes life span
· web page updated in real time (chat)
Additional features discussed/proposed:
· Tagging of discussion subject by posters _ readers
· Categorization _ prioritization based on tagging and post ranking
(can be useful to most elements of the system including delegation,
personal record, and debates)
· Integration of public information to help online deliberations.
Possibly a feed reporting laws under discussion and latest official
reports from the relevant elected body (city council, parliament..) by
categories of issues to all these involved in discussions on it.
· Making supporting evidence available for deliberations (let users
attach documents to a discussion – documents that should be tagged
and evaluated just as any other feature)
· Put safeguards against cluttering in place to ensure deliberations
remain efficient. In particular, give initial approval rating to a post
according to the number of clients represented by the person writing
the post so as to ensure access to everyone who may want to speak,
while making speech through a proxy and consensus-building a more
efficient way of communicating.
Please add any other features you may want to see added, and let’s discuss the ins and outs of these.
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
New discussion
Answer