[pp.int.general] PP-IT Statutes & pan-organizational Structures WG

[carlo von lynX]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 08:22:36PM +0000, Antonio Garcia wrote:
> There is a basic flaw in your research, Carlo. If you want everybody to be equal as the grassroots movement demands, then you can NOT use software so complex that only a few understand how it works (not only the user interface, but also the logic internals) because then some are more equal than others.

No, LD compensates for that.

> No matter how much those that do NOT understand the internals love it because at first sight it seems to enable a bypass in the user interface whereby people can simply forget all the argumentation and go straight to the VOTE BUTTON.
> 
> Liquid Feedback enables a CLICK-THROUGH #IDIOCRAZY where the votes of the few that have given the issues input and serious thought are worth JUST AS MUCH as the votes of those many that after a weekend of alcoholic nirvana log in to randomly asses their equality to others by simply pushing any vote option without giving its meaning a single thought. I vote, thus I am ;).

Yes, that is a problem. It can be addressed by using
different policy settings with higher quora and consensus
requirements. I don't know if that has been tried anywhere
yet. Also, LQFB no longer advertizes quick & dirty voting 
as it used to do in the early versions, and the early
enthusiasm encouraging people to vote when they are
actually not competent enough has evolved into a culture
of recommending abstention or delegation.

> The issue is being problematic enough where there is a cost attached to the behaviour, like the travel costs involved to the presence of folks at the real life BundesParteiTag tradition. It can only get worse where the real cost of access to "I vote, thus I am" philosophy is practically ZERO.

This is a good comparison. When LQFB is not used in LD
way, but too much in a DD style, then you inherit the 
classic problems of DD. What the "collective rationality"
thread evolved is a method for eliminating proposals that
rely on incorrect assertions, this way the "idiocracy"
would at least be reduced to proposals that aren't absurd.
Demagogic proposals usually have some fallacy hidden in
the details. If exposing that fallacy makes the policy
unvotable and the proponent possibly subject to sanctions
(if it looks like they did it on purpose), then voting
tourism cannot cause harsh damages and demagogy is
disincentivized.

> The problem of the Italian Pirate Party with its LIQUID FEEDBACK general and permanent assembly is well known... in order not to be taken over by the majority as I described them... you need a very elaborated vetting mechanism for those you give access to the VOTE BUTTON. A vetting mechanism that will be tainted by the understanding of those that are already inside and able to decide on its characteristics at the moment it goes up, and then becomes immune to no matter how rational the critics of those that did not have the chance to be a part of the relatively random group of initial adopters.

Apparently not well known enough. I don't even know what
you are talking about.

> Laughing at the whole tragicomic situation. There is no wrong or right, good or bad people here, it is a whole interdependant mass dynamic.

That sounds much more agreeable.

> No doubt I am as worthy of being sent to the Gulag as any intellectual under the Bolshevik, Mao or Vietcong administration.

Moderation isn't a gulag. It is more like a PR department
keeping folks from trumping out stupid things that will make
their life harder when interacting with others.

> Ask "mattias.bjarnemalm at piratpartiet.se" <mattias.bjarnemalm at piratpartiet.se>. The list is managed by the Swedish, and he once threathened to exclude me from it ;).

Exclusion is not the way. Personalized PR departments
are the future.  :)  Need to get back to translating
the http://my.pages.de/convivenza document that
describes this approach better. I'm 50% done.

> Sadly, there is NO WAY you are ever going to achieve anything from INSIDE the already existing KINDERGARTEN. I ran the Spanish Pirate Party all the way down to ONLY THIRTEEN members... and still the infantile were a majority, because the intelligent go away or stay away much earlier from any mechanism where the naieve have free reign to invade the structure much easier than any intelligent group could.

I wouldn't use these terms to describe it, but
what you describe might indeed be quite a problem
for several Pirate parties. Starting new movements
may be necessary to actually have a healthy base of
people, but then you run the risk of repeating all
the mistakes. They may even learn A from the history
of some other project, but then they mess up B which
the other project had figured out right. At least
that's what I perceive when watching projects like
DiM, DiB, DiEM... "democracy in" is en vogue now.

> You need a workgroup of INTELLIGENT people creating the mechanisms and rules by which the group can stay majoritarily INTELLIGENT... before you open up.

We were so incredibly lucky when we experienced that
collective intelligence blast and won the elections
in 2011. I don't think it was intelligence that made
it work - I think it was humbleness. We were collectively
humble enough to be impressed by what we were achieving
and humbled to get elected. Humble enough not to always
opinate but also to listen, read and learn. That changed
with success. And by the fact that bullies made a party
career instead of getting sanctions, just the way it is
now happening in the PP-BR. Since then, only behavioural
regulations could have helped, but the PP-DE still doesn't
have any. Nor does the PP-BR, I presume.

> > Regarding corruption resistance: how would you describe
> > when a decision is being made by a thousand people instead
> > of one? Isn't that an example of corruption-resistant design?
> 
> A decision taken by a thousand people is as intelligent and corruption-resistant as the maximum intelligence level that can be in use to be able to include 50%+1 of the members in such majority decision. If you have to go down to KINDERGARTEN level to find a 50%+1 group... then only KINDERGARTEN level decisions can be reached, any other unable to reach sufficient consensus.

I am not a fan of simple majorities, but intelligence wasn't
the topic. It was about how you have to manipulate thousand
people rather then just bribe an individual. Manipulation is
a lot more expensive.

> > Or are you convinced that a thousand can be corrupted just
> > as easily as a single one?
> 
> Are you blind? Rational decision making needs rationality to be upheld actively.
> A thousand does not only get rationally corrupted, it also gets emotionally brainwashed.

Talk to a lobbyist. I bet an unpredictable thousand people is
super stressful to them compared to buying one person.

> That is what happened with PPI at the 2012 PPI GA and lingers on through all the others held since.

You speak of the risks of DD? Especially in physical 
circumstances when beer is a more important topic 
than getting acquainted with what's at stake?
Much better to have long-term LD debates then...  :)


-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/