[pp.int.general] Pirate Party MEP Fails to Deliver True Copyright Reform | TorrentFreak

[carlo von lynX]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:11:01PM +0100, Alessandro Ciofini wrote:
> That's why I cannot understand Amelia's words: I refused to read a
> single line of Julia's report either all Amelia's links because I
> myself consider the way Amelia used totally inappropriate, especially
> because she is the President of PP-EU.

But Amelia is not the first person to make this mistake of choosing
the weapon of mass publication for getting her message across. This
has been done by dozens of pirates before, each time causing havoc
and damage to the movement and its chances of getting elected ever
again. On a personal level I appreciate most of these people, I love
both Julia and Amelia for many years of good work. They all picked
that weapon because it felt natural and appropriate to do so in that
moment, but each time they did, they kicked down a piece of the work
of art that thousands have spent effort in building.

I want this movement to acknowledge that we have a systemic problem
that we have permitted to happen since at least 2011 (possibly in
Sweden even earlier), and here we are in 2015 and there is still
limited interest in rationally identifying the problem and looking
at ways to address it.

In my effort to conceive a political party organization that does
not suck I've looked at Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel prize winning
economist that developed design principles for institutions of the
Commons. These include participation (3), sanctions for people who
violate community rules (5), easy access to mechanisms of conflict
resolution (6) and effective implementation of community rules (4).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom for the numbers.

We have come up with forms of participation that are well beyond 
what was feasible only a few decades ago, but we have not created 
a stable architecture respecting the other design principles that 
it takes to be a party of the common good - mostly because we 
usually reject defining and enforcing rules. We have let shitstorms
happen. We have let people express their opinions with megaphones
rather than via debating platforms where everyone could be equal.
One where these well-intended loud-speakers would maybe understand
that their opinion is just yet another opinion, and it is not
correct to use unfair communication tools. If your opinion is the
valid one, it shalt prevail using the same tools as any other pirate.

And most of all, the electorate does not have the patience for a
messy crowd of egocentrics. They want us to show how our techniques
for developing a common political position work. They want to see
the results. I am proposing to introduce a rule of equality and
fairness in the exercise of articulating a political position such
that these failgates stop happening in future. Bashing people who
weren't aware of this is awful. Making rules so that future people
will not be unaware and hopefully will not damage our common
project is constructive.

Feel free to criticize my proposal on rational grounds - like why
this problem does not exist or why the proposed problem resolution
would not work.


-- 
	    http://youbroketheinternet.org
 ircs://psyced.org/youbroketheinternet