[pp.int.general] R?ttning mitt?t, sort of: some thoughts for the mailing list

Betiel betielix at gmail.com
Wed May 21 20:16:25 CEST 2014

Carlo, I´ll cut some parts of your email because I want to focus in only
some of them.

2014-05-18 13:55 GMT-03:00 carlo von lynX <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org>:

> It's been almost a year, but since noone said what I have to say, I do it
> now.
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 02:23:17PM +0200, Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet)
> wrote:
> > and openness is a virtue. The alternative would be moderating posts
> > and/or participants, and that's not who we are; that's not the swarm
> > way of collaborating.
> Yes we rather degenerated into fighting without decency and respect
> for each other. Would be okay if you were proposing some technology to
> handle the problem, but like this you are trying to propose a new way
> to deal with problems that are thousands of years old, and have failed
> again and again - just recently in the 80s with the German Greens.
> If your idea was so bright, philosophers would have come up with it
> much earlier and the world would work in swarms instead of political
> parties.
Perhaps the ideas are old, but the maturity that a society  needs to take
some ideas and apply them changes through time.  That`s mean, same ideas
applied on different contexts results can have quite different results.
Here you can add the difference of cultures, what works in one culture can
be a disaster in other and biceversa.
That`s the reason why some ideas were never applied before. Because neither
culture or the needed madurity were reached.

> > Instead, I'd like to remind everybody about two important principles:
> >
> > - - Attention is reward.
> > - - If you see something you don't like, contribute with something
> >   you do like.
> And then look how trolls puke all over it with non-sense populistic
> superficiliasm that somehow hurts even if it is completely baseless?

here you must ask yourself what is that trolls wants. They just want to
have fun, or perhaps they are trying to destroy something because they have
a different agenda.
If they want to have fun, the phrase do not fed the troll is tottally
If they want to destroy what you are building is important to take the
troll into recognizing he is trying to destroy what you build. One way is
to say things like this: if you believe what we are doing it, why you keep
trying to destroy it? are you sure you are one of us? etc..

> > ATTENTION IS REWARD: If you give somebody attention for a behavior,
> > you will reinforce that behavior, whether the behavior is something
> > you want to see more or less of. This means that giving attention to
> > things you dislike is inherently self-defeating, as they will be
> > nurtured by your attention.
> You mean "don't feed the troll." That is flawed thinking as it only
> works for environments where there is a clearly defined leadership.
> In that case the leader ignores the troll and everything is fine.
Well, if most of the participants acts like leaders that works too.

> In a political party, ignoring the troll gives him or her a certain
> amount of victory and influences bystanders and newcomers that aren't
> fully understanding the issues. That is, with every last word the
> troll gets, his or her influence grows.
> I do not agree. Most people recognizes trolls and just think that person
is an idiot. Perhaps they do not tell it, but i can assure that`s what

> So "don't feed the troll" does NOT work in democratic environments.
> Letting trolls act freely WILL damage the democratic process.
> Mailing lists are an ideal platform for trolls.

I totally disagre here. I`m in plenty of democratic lists and enviroments
where "do not feed the troll " works quite fine.

> > LIKE: This is closely related to the Law of Two Feet. We're a
> > meritocracy where we're dependent on many people trying many different
> > things. Leadership with us is not achieved by vote or appointment, but
> > by taking an initiative and letting others follow that initiative of
> > their own free will. Disliking an initiative is fine, but criticizing
> > the initiative from that emotion misses the point - being pioneers, we
> > must necessarily try many paths, and many of them will be dead ends,
> > but we don't know that before trying them. The more paths we try, the
> > more ways of success we'll find. Therefore, the proper response to
> > seeing somebody walk down a path you don't believe in is to walk down
> > your own path that you believe more in.
> Pirates do that all the time, but most of the time it leads to ten
> pirates standing at the end of ten different paths. And what's worse:
> All of them have not properly analyzed the problem at hand if they
> simply followed their opinionistic instincts rather than engaging
> in a rational problem/solution-finding process as also described in
> the document i linked above.

Well, you can easily solve it. You only start a new idea if you have all
the tools, people, and time to do it. Otherwise you keep yourself trying to
obtain them and meanwhile you can help with the other ideas that do have
tools, people and time to do it.

> I can see it in most pirate parties: N people, firmly convinced that
> the PP needs to do AAA or BBB to fix all problems, and none of them
> having fully thought it through and based it upon the evidence of
> the problems at hand. But they are ready to fight to the blood for
> their convictions. Excuse me, this is not my idea of Pirates.
> Well there is a problem. Those pirates are not trying to get consensus,
they just defend their postures. The consensus is something else. Is
changing your ideas and the other ideas so everytime you look at them there
are more people that agrees with them.

> The idea of "voting with your feet" may be easy to implement in
> real life, but it WILL NOT return the best possible results as it
> fosters populistic followerships instead of rationally and
> scientifically debating all options and collectively realizing what
> the best solution would be.

here we are all rationals. Aren`t we???

> A proper process of consensus-finding.
> (Which I also admit isn't really supported by Liquid Feedback,

I agree with that.

> so
>  you will want to choose other tools. We use Pads and Mumble
>  meetings for now, then hope the remaining party folks will
>  understand and appreciate what we bring to the assembly).
> totally agree that these tools are quite useful to reach consensus.

> > (As a final plug, these and many more principles are covered more
> > in-depth in my book Swarmwise, which covers my leadership experiences
> > taking the PPSE from nothing into the European Parliament. Five
> PPSE is a very special case. A PP that does not have a court of
> arbitration, where it is accepted that whoever is elected to the
> board will run the show, no questions asked. This is not the idea
> of a political party the other Pirate Parties would like to follow
> methinks.
> Also, it seems that the swarm effect has only worked once. It's
> like triggering a chain reaction of retweets. Somewhat superficial
> and short-lived.
> Although that doesn't mean I don't have a lot of respect for your
> achievements. For that moment it was perfect. I just don't think
> they are a blueprint for the movement in the long run.
Well, the swarm kind of organization still have space for improvements.

> It's not sustainable.

We do not know that yet. I believe is to early to say.

> > chapters have been published so far, and you can read them here:
> >
> >
> http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/14/swarmwise-the-tactical-manual-to-changing-the-world-chapter-one/
> >
> > )
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rick
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: On the rare occasion, I have seen disrespect against fellow
> > activists on this mailing list, and I never think that's ok. Whether
> > to call it out or not is a judgment call on a case-by-case basis, but
> > that will not be done by the mailing list maintainers in that role.
> > See the two names as technical administrators of the mailing list
> > server, and not enforcers of any kind of social rules.
> And that is a bug that can easily be fixed.
> If the Pirate movement doesn't learn how to treat social problems
> appropriately, we will always drown our occasional successes in
> the destructive atmosphere that demotivates members, supporters,
> electorate, and as we have seen in Germany, even makes it into
> the media and becomes the #1 thing the Pirates are identified by.
> well that is a problem. Strict horizontality is quite public, so all the
people knows exactly all.. Some times that can be demolishing. But, you
know what. I prefer that in a party, and not the perfect party where all is
quite smooth and then if you just search under the carpet you find terrible
things they hide.

> Incapacity of civilization.
> Luckily there is some 2% that sticks to us no matter how harsh
> we are to each other, but even that may vanish if you don't get
> our act together. And that could start with this mailing list.
> If the new PPI board doesn't think it's a good idea to have
> somebody vibes watch this list, then we can decide to have it
> happen by motion at the next GA.
> What I really believe we have to do something is about people that really
want to destroy the Pirate movement.Meaning  by this, possible infiltrates,
people that goes against our principles. That kind of people creates mess
and we cannot say they really belong to our parties. .


> Cheers,
> your fan von lynX.
> P.S. This statement does not necessarily reflect the
> opinions of my employer, my wife or my political party.
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20140521/2171ab61/attachment.html>

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list