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

[carlo von lynX]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 05:28:27PM +0200, aloa5 wrote:
> >>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.

Exactly, so you can blame it on the stupidity of the participants
but you are plain wrong to claim LQFB has low quality of input.
In fact it has the highest I've seen.

> >>-> 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.

Yes, debating methods in LQFB can certainly be improved - but still
the democratic suggestion method is among the most advanced things
I have seen in that field.

> >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.

Why? Because direct democracy and representative democracies are more
acceptable options?

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

That is saying you would rather go back to direct and representative
democracy than to use a tool that can be abused by people because
there is no respect for the rule of law within the pirate party.
You just blamed a technology for a social problem, and the social
solution to the social problem exists - it only needs to be applied.

> >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.]

Of course the developer cannot solve the social problems of the
pirate party, indeed. For the other problems you may have to get
your hands dirty and start coding. Look at liquid-PPAT for inspiration.

> >>-> 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.]

By removing this aspect you just make it informal and intransparent.
And you still haven't mentioned your alternative solution to the
problem but I remember from your previous mail that you are suggesting
to go back to direct democracy. I say that is going to be a bigger
problem than LQFB ever was, because you are not dealing with the
actual issues. You are just coding something you feel good about.

> >>-> 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.

Come to Berlin and ask the people who won that election for you.
Or look at what they said the last time:
	https://lqpp.de/be/issue/show/635.html

You are even refusing the most documented things.
This is not a reasonable debate then.

> >>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

There is no desasterous results of LQFB to my knowledge. Show me some.

> (the)  problems exist. Your claim that the tool is great and only

The problems of the German pirate party are totally different. Here
some insipiration to consult:

    http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Wahlen/Bund/2013/Analyse

> the people are the wrong ones may sound scientific to you.
> 
> Not for me.

No, the people are not wrong. The lack of rule of law is wrong.
And all the other problems listed in the link above that have
caused the crisis of the Piratenpartei. Blaming it on a software
that didn't even get decisional is quite ridiculous.