[pp.int.general] GA: Membership Requests
jemers2 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 22 22:36:17 CEST 2016
Say Hi to your bosses for me :-)
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Jay Emerson <jemers2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> What the fuck do you think you're gonna do about it? Take the party away
> from us? LMAO!!! Yeah, come and try and take the party from us, see what
> happens. We do whatever the fuck we want together. We are brothers and
> sisters that care for each other and we have all known each other for
> almost 12 years. So yeah good luck with that.
> <3 NYPP
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Jay Emerson <jemers2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wow....I now remember why I never involve myself in these emails.
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:42 PM, carlo von lynX <
>> lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org> wrote:
>>> Thank you both for your insights.
>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:04:36PM -0400, Jay Emerson wrote:
>>> > Here you go Carlos, I attached it to this email.
>>> I am quite amazed by the artistic value of this constitutional
>>> manifesto that you send us in place of legal statutes. The
>>> formatting makes it a not so easy read. The repetition of Article
>>> 7 indicates that the document hasn't met the eyes of a lawyer yet.
>>> Also the general absence of legalese, which makes it artistic, but
>>> not very clear for the purposes of jurisdiction or construction of
>>> a political party.
>>> Title 2 with the party structure starts on page 8. Again as with
>>> the other candidates there is no dedicated implementation of inner
>>> justice. The "Legal" power is described as being an expert that
>>> interacts with legislational bodies, not with issues of infighting.
>>> The statutes suggest two key roles, and administrative and an
>>> operations officer. The distinction is just in these words, so it
>>> isn't really very clear who decides on which issues.
>>> The statutes mention the existence of "members," but now how
>>> they enter or leave the party.
>>> It mentions the existence of "wiki, forums and chat channels",
>>> but without giving them a structural clear role or who is
>>> allowed to do their administration with the implied powers of
>>> moderation and control.
>>> It is specified that "veto consensus vote" is applied in election of
>>> people into the various roles, but not who is entitled to vote.
>>> The specified voting method is vulnerable to a simple denial attack:
>>> anyone can impose their candidate by vetoing all other candidates.
>>> Given two attackers of this kind, the party is deadlocked.
>>> Worse even, the voting system is declared to be anonymous, thus
>>> making it impossible to trace who the attackers are.
>>> The design of the party suffers from the classic problems of
>>> trusting people to be good rather than ensuring they will. This
>>> is essentially contrary to the philosophy of democracy which
>>> distrusts all people in whichever role and limits the range of
>>> damage they can make. So IMHO the voting method is incompatible
>>> with the declaration of being in full support of separation of
>>> powers. The document essentially tries to walk two different
>>> and incompatible philosophical paths at the same time, democracy
>>> and the belief in the goodness of men, which is why I consider it
>>> more artistic than legal.
>>> Article 3 mentions the existence of "meetings" although members
>>> have not yet been defined. Members may be ejected from meetings,
>>> but it isn't specified by who nor who they can appeal to. The
>>> Administrator is then granted the privilege to expel members.
>>> Litigation outside of meetings (in the forum for example) is
>>> not considered.
>>> Article 5 declares that a democratic process must be used, but
>>> it doesn't say how the democratic process works. That is the
>>> intention of statutes! Just saying people have to be nice has
>>> never worked in human history to ensure they will be nice.
>>> That totals ten major flaws in your legal architecture.
>>> Jay, this document is beautiful, but it shows that you have no
>>> clue on how to make a political party. By proclaiming democracy
>>> without actually defining it, your document does not IMHO describe
>>> neither a functional nor an actually democratic organization.
>>> Maybe you should team up with people that know that part of the
>>> Also, if you believe so much in democracy, why did you take the
>>> initiative on the quite interesting VISA issue before holding a
>>> meeting to ensure anybody else would agree with you?
>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> Jay Emerson
> Jay Emerson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general