[pp.int.general] LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?

Antonio Garcia ningunotro at hotmail.com
Sun Apr 27 15:41:23 CEST 2014

With the ACTUAL enviroment AND the basic aims of PIRATE PARTIES...


Computer tools only serving as an interface to make it swiftly possible TODAY.

Unless A BIG MAJORITY... really switches ON his brain and decides to thoroughly use it.

There is NO TECHNICAL SHORTCUT for that though... so do not use the tool  before its time has come.


> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:34:12 +0200
> From: piratenpartei at t-online.de
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?
> Eduardo Robles Elvira schrieb:
>> Hello Aloa:
> ....
>> the whole system fail. This is why I usually prefer to have them first
>> separated, then maybe we can try to join two successful methods, one for
>> voting and another for discussion. Maybe I'm wrong and too conservative
>> here, that's just what I feel right.....
> It´s (not?) a question if there is a possibility.
> What I wrote is a "fact". It´s that what LQFB does - how it works (or not).
> Lynx as a normal LQFB-liker said "you have not understood LQFB" to me.
> Well. It is not a question if LQFB was made for working in a special way
> or not. It is also not a question if it works how it should or not. The
> core problem is that this tool requires a special enviroment so that the
> outcome in the end is acceptable. It´s not a question if there is a
> binding or if it is transparent or not.
> ---> Which quality [input]
> ---> Wich quality ["discussion"-phase.... what is a joke if we speak
> about some hundred of special questions at the same time]
> ---> Wich quality [delegation phase]
> ---> Wich quality [output]
> The technical point of view is not really important. For every of these
> 4 quality-steps we can see the problem not only of a working tool but
> also of this type of democracy.
> Actually LQFB has a
> -> low quality of input (wich is not it´s job - per design)
> -> no quality of discussion (wich is not it´s job -- per design)
> -> no quality of delegation (wich is not it´s job -- per design)
> -> no quality of output
> That are no problems if you use the tool for voting e.g. in a meeting of
> 100 specialists. HQ input, discussed thousand times before, everyone
> knows about the knowledge of the others, HQ output related to the steps
> before.
> And again: it´s not a question if you use 1 tool for both or 2 tools or
> 5 tools or if you discuss via twitter or find a suitable person on whom
> you wish to delegate at the toilet. The "fact" is that the enviroment of
> "informed people" [topic; potential delegations; whatever] does not
> exist. And because of this it´s just an accident if the output is HQ.
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list