[pp.int.general] LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?
piratenpartei at t-online.de
Sun Apr 27 17:28:27 CEST 2014
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
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
>> -> 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
>> -> 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.
More information about the pp.international.general