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

[aloa5]

carlo von lynX schrieb:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 03:34:12PM +0200, aloa5 wrote:
>> Lynx as a normal LQFB-liker said "you have not understood LQFB" to
>
> which I underscored with a long mail refuting your top 5 reasons
> against LQFB as most are specific to the wrong way it was
> deployed in Germany.
>
>> Actually LQFB has a
>> -> low quality of input (wich is not it?s job - per design)
>
> That is incorrect. By having to reach a democratic quorum of
> support no other tool I ever saw has a similarly high degree of
> input. Italian LQFB actually has slightly too low quora, so we do
> sometimes see populistic humbug make it to debating phase.

Input is what comes first into the tool. The quality of the participants 
of the neccessary critical mass of a first quorum decides what kind of 
quality reaches a debating phase.


>> -> no quality of discussion (wich is not it?s job -- per design)
>
> LQFB tries to enforce debate on a strictly constructive level
> (you have to make suggestions) and it includes democratic feedback
> in each of those steps. Negating this is just stubborn.

Perhaps you know the difference between feedback and discussion. If 
someone writes "The Euro is bad - we want Sloti" you can give him 
feedback "you are wrong, because....". But that´s not a discussion about 
the topic with the reading (and deciding) people about the topic [with 
conclusion that they should say "no" to the opinion].

The alternative of LQFB is a concurrent with "don´t say yes to the other 
text" or "we want the Euro" [or anything else wasting time].

That has nothing to do with leaving a constructive level. And "debate on 
constructive level" is not the right term as there is no real discussion.

> and sometimes suggestions are used abusively - that is a disciplinary
> problem

That´s an unsolved problem - as others. And with this problems are 
claims for binding decisions not acceptable. Not now -- and for sure 
never ever in 2010.

If there was a real historical mistake in Germany than this to uset a 
tool with that much unsolved problems background.

> These are TODOs, not reasons to throw away achievements and go
> back to where politics already is.

These were TODOs 4 years before - and 4 years after not solved. AND the 
developer negated solving (seeing) the problems. [And that is a positive 
description.]

>> -> no quality of delegation (wich is not it?s job -- per design)
>
> Social trust is the foundation of representative democracy. It sucks
> and it fails frequently. If you have a suggestion on how to fix that,
> that's great - but don't say that direct democracy is it, because
> that is not true.

Quality of delegation can have a rational level when used in a 
context/professional dependent manner relatet to a topic. The "who is 
who" of knowing the correct politician should not be a part of a voting 
tool. Even it could. Perhaps some pirates (as I am one) like arguments 
more than shaking hands. [O.K. - illusions... most likely it was never 
the aim of the tool to be something else as an instrument for becoming 
acceptance.]

>> -> no quality of output
>
> We just won the 2011 elections wit it and you wouldn't be here if we
> didn't. You are opinionated to the end corners of your brain and
> have left all scientific approach to the problems at hand.

LQFB has nothing to do with the outcome of the (any) elections.


>> 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.
>
> The 2011 Berlin programme and subsequent election results are a proof
> of how wrong you are. You are making up opinions, influenced by a
> loud disinformed minority. You are not taking a scientific approach
> to the problem.

I am a longer time in this party then you are. And I think I perhaps 
read, discussed an thought as much as you about this topic.

The (desasterous) result of LQFB in the last years are a proof that 
(the)  problems exist. Your claim that the tool is great and only the 
people are the wrong ones may sound scientific to you.

Not for me.


Regards
Otmar



>
>