Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:-M: SD2-S is RD, which can handle participatory democracy.Here is an example of the lemming algorithm which DD uses:Bob recieves the equivalent of 500 votes from others,but his own vote is still worth only one, until he is in legislativeoffice , where he may have winner take all vote equivilency.
L: Mark is not describing DD (Direct Democracy) here, he is describingRepresentative Democracy with elected representatives, which has theknown defect.-M: I am describing the lemming-algorithm which DD uses. Both DD and L-RD use the simple direct counting of votes,
L: We all agree that this is a defect of standard elected representativedemocracy, and this is the reason why we prefer non-elective proxydemocracy, which is also direct democracy if direct votes are allow.In the systems we envision, Bob casts one vote. If others haveauthorized Bob to vote for them, these other votes are cast withBob’s. If they have not authorized him, or if they vote directly, hedoes not cast their votes.
-M: That is accumulative voting. With multiple proxies and with unlimited proxy-to-proxy layer depth, you will need an algorithm like PageRank, like what SD2-S uses.
L: The only difference with Mark’s system is that he would not allowvoters to vote directly.
-M: There still is DD features for holding decisions in deliberation. And with multi proxies, it is concievable that a majority of the voting population could become proxies/representitives.
L: So his system is pure RD. Even though he uses proxies to create it.
-M: SD2 allows for pure RD, but I don think that SD2-S is pure RD.
L: […] In Asset, in the simplified Fractional Approval Asset Voting methodthat I proposed, voters use a standard ballot. Mark one or morecandidates. If you mark one, that candidate gets one vote as anasset. If you mark more than one, say you mark N, each candidatemarked gets 1/N votes.
-M: PageRank already has this feature. Didn’t you know this?
PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy
depth.
This is how SD2-S works.
L: If the quota for election is Q votes, and candidate receiving Q votesor more is elected. Excess votes received by such candidates,together with the votes of candidates who did not receive Q votes,are distributed at the discretion of the candidates who hold theassets.
-M: This is a proxy-to-proxy layer.
And this is strange, because the candidates already should of voted for
others.
And with SD2-S, there would be no election.
Offices simply get filled in real time where the higher ranked get
their choice.
L: This is Delegable Proxy in that the elected members, some ofthem, have received delegated votes.
-M: With SD2-S, anyone can recieve delegated votes.
L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each member having one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pure DP, but Asset could be a step along the way.
-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter.
And, in a manditory RD environment, it forces all of someone’s vote to
be given to a single other person.
By contrast, with SD2-S, the most that a single person can give another
single person is 50% of their voting power.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 04:37 PM 11/4/2006, Mark wrote:
I’m not sure that Mark understood the proposal. It creates a standard peer assembly, with each member of the assembly having one vote. That one vote actually represents Q votes, where Q was the election quota.L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each memberhaving one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pure DP, but Asset could be a step along the way.-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter.
And, in a manditory RD environment, it forces all of someone’s vote tobe given to a single other person.By contrast, with SD2-S, the most that a single person can give anothersingle person is 50% of their voting power.
Asset Voting is very close to traditional concepts of electoral democracy, but it results in every voter having cast a vote that ultimately goes to a representative who gains a seat.
(Almost every. Some votes may be wasted if they are given to candidates who are not willing to reassign them. But in this case, there is someone responsible for the waste, and a voter can hold that person accountable for the fact that the voter ended up with no representative.)
(I’ve proposed on the Range Voting list that when a candidate transfers a block of votes, that the candidate assign these votes according to precinct. The total of precinct counts would not need to exactly match the block size, it would be enough that a voter’s vote substantially went to a particular candidate. The idea is for voters to know that their vote specifically, together with others, resulted in the election of a specific representative. Their vote counts.)
The system which the candidates use to distribute the votes they receive is not a part of the method of Asset Voting. They could use delegable proxy, as one example. They could use simple negotiation and bargaining, if their numbers were relatively few. They could use some system, perhaps, as SD2-S, though it seems to me that SD2-S has some constraints that they might not like.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each memberhaving one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pureDP, but Asset could be a step along the way.
-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter.
L: I’m not sure that Mark understood the proposal. It creates a standardpeer assembly, with each member of the assembly having one vote. Thatone vote actually represents Q votes, where Q was the election quota.-M: Sure, initial voting power of one vote. I mean the limit of having only one proxy.
And, in a manditory RD environment, it forces all of someone’s vote tobe given to a single other person.By contrast, with SD2-S, the most that a single person can give anothersingle person is 50% of their voting power.
L: Asset Voting is very close to traditional concepts of electoraldemocracy, but it results in every voter having cast a vote thatultimately goes to a representative who gains a seat.
-M: ‘…seat’ – with the unlimited proxy depth of SD2-S, almost all voting strength would flow upward to the highest ranked anyway. To have a secondary step of redirecting proxy votes to the highest ranked seems:
L: (Almost every. Some votes may be wasted if they are given tocandidates who are not willing to reassign them. But in this case,there is someone responsible for the waste, and a voter can hold thatperson accountable for the fact that the voter ended up with norepresentative.)
-M: With SD2-S, because of its unlimited proxy depth, the open trust network is entirely interconnected, which means that a random voter will have a +99% chance of atleast indirectly having a proxy as an office holder. (the only way a voter would not is if he voted into a closed cluster, which is very unlikely(because it would only take a single vote out of the cluster for this cluster to ‘leak’, and thus become open instead of closed.))
L: […]The system which the candidates use to distribute the votes they receive is not a part of the method of Asset Voting. They could use delegable proxy, as one example.[…]They could use some system, perhaps, as SD2-S, though it seems to me that SD2-S has some constraints that they might not like.
-M: They may not ‘like’ it, but can the argue against it? As long as I have the winning points, I am happy.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 04:13 PM 11/8/2006, Mark wrote:
Lomax wrote:FAAV does not have that limit. One may have more than one proxy, but in this case, the vote is divided. that is the “Fractional” in Fractional Approval.Mark wrote:L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each memberhaving one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pureDP, but Asset could be a step along the way.
-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter.L: I’m not sure that Mark understood the proposal. It creates a standardpeer assembly, with each member of the assembly having one vote. Thatone vote actually represents Q votes, where Q was the election quota.-M: Sure, initial voting power of one vote.I mean the limit of having only one proxy.
It is not clear that most voters would gain any advantage by effectively naming a virtual committee instead of an individual to carry forward their vote. But they may do so.
It should be understood that I favor delegable proxy. FAAV resembles delegable proxy. Unstated in the FAAV method is how the candidates redistribute the assets. Delegable Proxy is one possibility, in which case what we have is a special-purpose usage of DP to elect a peer assembly. There is no fixed limit to the depth.
FAAV leaves the candidates free to distribute — or even to not distribute — the votes.
It can be implemented with existing voting equipment. However, the fractional calculations could be a problem in some jurisdictions. In that case, it could be AV with single vote. As I noted, I don’t see much advantage, and some disadvantage, in encouraging voters to name more than one.
In your dreams.L: […]The system which the candidates use to distribute thevotes they receive is not a part of the method of Asset Voting. They could use delegable proxy, as one example.[…]They could use some system, perhaps, as SD2-S, though it seems to me that SD2-S has some constraints that they might not like.-M: They may not ‘like’ it, but can the argue against it?As long as I have the winning points, I am happy.
They do not need to argue against it. They will choose what they prefer. If SD2-S is set up and available, I’m fairly sure they would look at it. Unless Mark has been the marketing department.
Mark is happy if he is “right,” even if it has no practical effect. I’d personally rather be wrong than to be useless.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:Lomax wrote:Mark wrote:L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each memberhaving one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pureDP, but Asset could be a step along the way.-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter.L: I’m not sure that Mark understood the proposal. It creates a standardpeer assembly, with each member of the assembly having one vote. Thatone vote actually represents Q votes, where Q was the election quota.-M: Sure, initial voting power of one vote.I mean the limit of having only one proxy.
L: FAAV does not have that limit.-M: I know. I was talking about what seems to be your prefered version of DP.
L: One may have more than one proxy, but in this case, the vote is divided. that is the “Fractional” in Fractional Approval. It is not clear that most voters would gain any advantage by effectively naming a virtual committee instead of an individual to carry forward their vote. But they may do so.
-M:
L: It should be understood that I favor delegable proxy. FAAV resembles delegable proxy. Unstated in the FAAV method is how the candidates redistribute the assets. Delegable Proxy is one possibility, in which case what we have is a special-purpose usage of DP to elect a peer assembly. There is no fixed limit to the depth. FAAV leaves the candidates free to distribute — or even to not distribute — the votes.
-M: OK.
L: It can be implemented with existing voting equipment. However, thefractional calculations could be a problem in some jurisdictions. Inthat case, it could be AV with single vote. As I noted, I don’t seemuch advantage, and some disadvantage, in encouraging voters to namemore than one.
-M: I’d like to see optical scan ballots and this data processed with
SD2-S to render political and issue hierarchies for large
organizations.
I see the national-political implimentation a long ways away.
L: […]The system which the candidates use to distribute thevotes they receive is not a part of the method of Asset Voting.They could use delegable proxy, as one example.[…]They could usesome system, perhaps, as SD2-S, though it seems to me that SD2-Shas some constraints that they might not like.
-M: They may not ‘like’ it, but can the argue against it?As long as I have the winning points, I am happy.
L: In your dreams. They do not need to argue against it. They will choose what theyprefer. If SD2-S is set up and available, I’m fairly sure they wouldlook at it. Unless Mark has been the marketing department.-M: Fuck marketing. Those who can’t evaluate SD2-S objectively don’t deserve its benefits. Those who are objective will be served by it.
L: Mark is happy if he is “right,” even if it has no practical effect.I’d personally rather be wrong than to be useless.
-M: Wrong is useless. Infact it is backwards and degenerating.
So start by being right, then hope that it has practical benefits.
And if people can’t recognize and appreciate rightness,
fuck’em – they don’t deserve its benefits.
To the sea the lemmings will go,
and hope they won’t drag you in with them.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 01:30 PM 11/9/2006, Mark wrote:
I see the national-political implimentation a long ways away.
Unless we get FA/DP first. And what exactly is in the way of FA/DP?
The only obstacle is ignorance and inertia. FA/DP is not opposed to anyone, but it does, indeed, make it possible for those who are opposed to rapidly and efficiently identify each other and do what is needed, outside the FA.
If they have waited until there is substantial agreement within the FA, it will be practically impossible to oppose them. And they judge what “substantial agreement” means. Fake registrations, sock puppets, shills, will not confuse them. It is fairly easy to test actual support.
-M: Wrong is useless. Infact it is backwards and degenerating.
No, being wrong is an opportunity to learn. Mark is demonstrating that he knows little about the path.
You learn a lot more by being wrong than by being right.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:[…]
-M: Wrong is useless. Infact it is backwards and degenerating.
L: No, being wrong is an opportunity to learn.-M: Learning already should have occured from learning from other people’s mistakes.
L: Mark is demonstrating that he knows little about the path.
-M: Keep your path, and your desire to learn from mistakes, to yourself. ( I am not being rude. The subjective domain of spirituality should be clearly separated from the intersubjective domain of politics. The rules are different.)
L: You learn a lot more by being wrong than by being right.
-M: If you want to learn, do it by yourself.
Don’t force others to learn from YOUR mistakes.
I have learned enough from my mistakes as a child and young adult.
Now, in the political arena, I only want to be right.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Mark:"Now, in the political arena, I only want to be right. "
-Even if I doubt that you always can be right, did it ever occur as an
oppurtunity to you that “right” might be wrong for some people, no
matter how intelligent and well informed you as a decisionmaker are?
And that several local decisions can be better than one big for the
whole country for instance.
Or that a deliberated and engaged group of 10% can make the “right”
decison over the 90% not interested?
That 50% +1 might be 10% of the whole population if not enough votes
(in a DD-issue or for election of a rep.)
In the DD case, this might not be so big deal since it is only one
single question, not to election of a rep for years.
In the RD case, it mean the way to hell, even if you have tried to
minimize the risks in SD-2.
Basicly: there is no such thing as a “right” decision to all.
Only more or less OK, decisions to individuals.
This is why DD is superior to RD, once the citizens have the tools
needed.
Because whom concerned will take the decisions.
To make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia, worthy a
dictator only.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Mark: "Now, in the political arena, I only want to be right. "
mg: Even if I doubt that you always can be right, did it ever occur as anoppurtunity to you that “right” might be wrong for some people, nomatter how intelligent and well informed you as a decisionmaker are?
-M: A decision has to be made. Even one that is right(serves the general welfare the best), may seem ‘wrong’ for some people. (And politicly, the only decisions I am responsable for is the production of quality leadership selection and project management systems.)
mg: And that several local decisions can be better than one big for the whole country for instance.
-M: Yes, SD2-S can support decentralization.
mg: Or that a deliberated and engaged group of 10% can make the “right” decison over the 90% not interested?
-M: Absolutely. SD2-S can work with small numbers.
mg: […] In the RD case, it mean the way to hell, even if you have tried tominimize the risks in SD-2.
-M: How? Leaders are selected with peer-selection with SD2-S. How is this not better than lemmings selecting administrators for a DD system?
mg: Basicly: there is no such thing as a “right” decision to all.
M: Your decision is that there can be no ‘right’ decision?
Then can your decision be right? Another one? :(
When are the contradictions going to stop?
mg: Only more or less OK, decisions to individuals.
-M: Bull-fuck’n-shit.
mg: This is why DD is superior to RD, once the citizens have the tools
needed. Because whom concerned will take the decisions.
-M: In democracy, it is the majority which is concerned. And this majority opinion is best measured by a deep-RD-algorithm, one that can render expert opinion. This is also republicanism.
mg: To make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia, worthy a dictator only.
M: So YOU say, both elitely and utopisticly?
You are now the dictator, who will speak for the majority on this
issue?(
More contradictions? :
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
…bla bla….>you are now the dictator…
No, expressing an opinion can never be dicatorship.
More false arguments from a bad debater! :(
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
[…]
Then can your decision be right? Another one? :-( When are the contradictions going to stop?mg: Basicly: there is no such thing as a “right” decision to all.-M: Your decision is that there can be no ‘right’ decision?
-M: Karl, you dodged this. I just got you.
How about conceding?
Just say"OK Mark, you fucked-me-up."
I won’t make fun of you.
I will call you a ‘sport’.
mg: Only more or less OK, decisions to individuals.
M: Bull-fuck’n-shit.mg: This is why DD is superior to RD, once the citizens have the tools needed. Because >whom concerned will take the decisions.-M: In democracy, it is the majority which is concerned.And this majority opinion is best measured by a deep-RD-algorithm,one that can render expert opinion. This is also republicanism.mG: To make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia, worthy a dictator only.
-M: So YOU say, both elitely and utopisticly? You are now the dictator, who will speak >for the majority on this issue? More contradictions? :(
mG: …bla bla….>you are now the dictator…No, expressing an opinion can never be dicatorship.
mG: More false arguments from a bad debater! :
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 01:36 PM 11/14/2006, Mark wrote:
-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.In his opinion.
We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their own debate skill. Debate is a communication art, and it is judged by its effect on an audience. Shall we vote?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:[…]
-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.
L: In his opinion.-M: If not, then show where my points are wrong.
L: We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their own
debate skill.
-M: I judge myself to be a good debater. Do you debate otherwise? If so, then do you debate for your own debating skills?
L: Debate is a communication art,…
-M: Debate is about being right, and using the right rule structures.
L:…and it is judged by its effect on an audience.
-M: No, its judged by the truth of the points.
L: Shall we vote?
-M: Sure. I vote that my points are all true. I welcome ANYONE to vote that ANY of my points are untrue.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
I vote that ALL your points about lemminghood are untrue.
You are mixing the well know flaws of RD with your own ideas of DD,
giving nonsence.
So there, you are uncorrect.
But as Lomax points out, debating is not about beeing correct, it’s
about convincing people.
And you seldom convince, Mark.
You have to improve on your debating skills if you want better results
in your selling of SD2.
One way is to stop being uncorrect, another is to listen to others
arguments and accept them instead of stating them to be “lemmings
words”.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
mg: I vote that ALL your points about lemminghood are untrue.
-M: I did show a post “Proof of Lemmingism”. Did you read it?
mg: You are mixing the well know flaws of RD with your own ideas of DD, giving nonsence.
So there, you are uncorrect. But as Lomax points out, debating is not about being correct, it’s about convincing people.
M: I haven’t been convinced of this. :)
mg: And you seldom convince, Mark.
-M: Nor do you, but again, convincing is not my job. Being right is my job.
mg: You have to improve on your debating skills if you want better results in your selling of SD2.
-M: Fuck selling SD2. I want to be right about it.
mg: One way is to stop being uncorrect, another is to listen to others arguments and accept them instead of stating them to be “lemmings words”.
-M: Have I been unfair with anyone?
If so, this would be a major problem.
Can you show any examples?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-M: I did show a post “Proof of Lemmingism”.
Did you read it?
-The number you have blamed lemminghood for the election of any corrupt
rep is uncountable.
And the number of times you have taken that as a evidence for failure
of any attempts whasoever of DD are even more uncountable.
mg: And you seldom convince, Mark.
-M: Nor do you, but again, convincing is not my job.
Being right is my job.
-Let’s leave that to others, but most of the times I see you tiring out someone thinking that a debate with you can lead to anything. Being right with wrong conclusions is not worth so much.
-M: Have I been unfair with anyone?
If so, this would be a major problem. Can you show any examples?
-Just make a search for “Mark” and the word “Lemming”.
All problems you can think of is because of lemminghood or corruption
basicly.
This is not being right, it is stupid and single tracked.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-M: I did show a post “Proof of Lemmingism”.Did you read it?
mG: The number you have blamed lemminghood for the election of any corruptrep is uncountable. And the number of times you have taken that as a evidence for failureof any attempts whasoever of DD are even more uncountable.-M: As I said, the problem with L-RD is that it is Lemming-RD and not SD2.
mg: And you seldom convince, Mark.-M: Nor do you, but again, convincing is not my job. Being right is my job.
mG: Let’s leave that to others,…-M: Why? I want to have the honor and burden of being right.
mG:…but most of the times I see you tiring out someone thinking that a debate with you can lead to anything.
-M: If a lemming doesn’t concede to truth,
my technique is to push him to exhastion.
This uses the lemming as an example to others.
mG: Being right with wrong conclusions is not worth so much.
-M: How can someone be right with the wrong conclusions?
-M: Have I been unfair with anyone?If so, this would be a major problem.Can you show any examples?
mG: Just make a search for “Mark” and the word “Lemming”. All problems you can think of is because of lemminghood or corruption basicly.-M: I asked about unfairness toward those I am communicating with. You now seem to be discussing my position on Lemmingism.
mG: This is not being right, it is stupid and single tracked.
-M: Lets examine this: “All problems you can think of is because of lemminghood or corruption basicly.”
OK, mostly true. Lets tighten it up a bit: Most problems I can think of are because of lemminghood and corruption.
Looks good to me. Where has this been challenged?
You seem to be of the opinion that people will make the correct
decisions when presented with information. The problem is this is just
information,
and it largely is unprocessed into meaning for the non-specialist.
So then WHO are the trustworthy specialists?
Without an anti-corruption mechanism,
the lemmings can be duped into selecting a fuck-head. :-(
This is why SD2-S selects people hierarchicly based on their
trustworthiness.
This deselects the dupes and fuck-heads.
Gotta better idea?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 04:37 PM 11/15/2006, Mark wrote:
Lomax wrote:Mark has mistaken correctness for debate skill. They are entirely two different things.Mark wrote:[…]-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.L: In his opinion.-M: If not, then show where my points are wrong.
What I wrote was correct. In Mark’s opinion, he is a good debater. And he has “whupped” those arguing with him. I’m not arguing, I’m stating facts, and I am unconcerned with whether or not what I’m writing shows good debate skills.
Yes, we knew that already.L: We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their owndebate skill.-M: I judge myself to be a good debater.
Do you debate otherwise?
You’re asking me my opinion? I’m not debating. Debate is quite a process. Rather, I’m just saying what I see. It will ring a bell with some people and not with others. At this point, I’m only looking to ring a few bells, not to convince the world. And when it is time to convince the world, it will probably not be me who is “debating.” There are people far better at that than me.
If so, then do you debate for your own debating skills?
Mark, you are an idiot.
No, that is correctness. Debate is about convincing people. I learned this the hard way, way back in grade school. Apparently, Mark missed the lesson. I can understand, it was not formally taught. I was right, I’d done my homework, I knew the issues. But somebody else won. Why? Beats me. Maybe they had nicer hair.L: Debate is a communication art,…-M: Debate is about being right, and using the right rule structures.
That was grade school. But look at the public arena. Reagan rather clearly won his debates with Carter. Was he right? Hardly. Carter was brilliant. But, as I said, debate is a communications skill.
It is not about being right. Rather, it is about attempting to establish that ideas are right to an audience. A good debater can often convince an audience that something is right that is actually wrong. Indeed, in debate contests, what do you think they do? Do the debaters get to pick which side they argue on an issue? Indeed, sometimes, debaters who support one side of an issue may agree to debate with someone who supports a different side. This can make their jobs easier, sometimes. And sometimes it’s harder. It can be harder when you are right, sometimes.
Nonsense. That’s not debate. That is “logical argument in support of the truth.” When Mark claimed that he had “whupped” another, he was clearly placing this in the contest realm, where there are winners and losers. Among those who seek the truth, there is no losing when someone else exposes more clearly the truth.L:…and it is judged by its effect on an audience.-M: No, its judged by the truth of the points.
For Mark’s edification, from Wikipedia:
Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and position representational <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument>argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument>logical argument, since it includes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion>persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience>audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_body>Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders_debate>leaders debates and the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election_debates>U.S. presidential election debates, are common in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>democracies.
Not the issue. The issue is how well you debate them, and Mark has asked the wrong question.L: Shall we vote?-M: Sure. I vote that my points are all true.I welcome ANYONE to vote that ANY of my points are untrue.
The question is, and I’m asking it and someone else can turn it into a formal poll if they care — I don’t — whether or not Mark has “won” his debate with anyone here?
And I vote No.
This has nothing to do with whether or not certain arguments presented by Mark are right or wrong. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Mark is “correct” more often than that. Mark, indeed, has a rare understanding of delegable proxy, in certain ways, and, for example, I think he may be correct when he claims that “Page Rank” is FAAV. But the way that he presents his arguments, practically nobody is convinced of anything he claims.
FAAV can have unlimited proxy depth. Depends on what the primary proxies do with their votes (that is, those who received votes in the secret ballot election, which votes may be divided by the voter). If they assign them to a proxy, who may assign them to a proxy, etc., there is unlimited depth unless a depth rule is added, which I would oppose.
Now, do I want DP to be “fractional” like FAAV? No. And I’m not going to debate it here, I simply don’t have time. Mark’s arguments have, however, convinced me that I need to examine more closely what happens when a proxy is inactive. And the solution I see is simply that clients may reach up beyond their proxy to the proxy of their proxy, and that proxies may reach down through their clients to their client’s clients. In FA/DP, this will happen naturally. I expect that mailing lists or the like will be used by proxies for communication with their clients, and I expect some of these lists to include a couple of levels of client-proxy relationship. That is, a proxy may start a list for his or her clients, and the list may allow direct posting, generally, from more than one layer of clients. I see, in an active organization, relatively few direct clients per proxy, and mailing lists can handle much more traffic than what is involved in a single proxy-client relationship. So both client and proxy may belong to a list which includes a whole tree of clients, but which remains below the size where traffic becomes a problem. This whole tree feeds a high-level proxy. And the clients immediately below him or her will themselves be members of even higher-level lists.
The central organization doesn’t need to deal with any of this. It is what the proxies and clients will do themselves, all they need to do is see examples, and they will imitate it. Or they will do something better.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:Lomax wrote:Mark wrote:[…]-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.L: In his opinion.-M: If not, then show where my points are wrong.
L: Mark has mistaken correctness for debate skill.-M: Correctness is a debating skill. You are talking about rhetorical skill.
L: They are entirely two different things. What I wrote was correct. In Mark’s opinion, he is a good debater. And he has “whupped” those arguing with him. I’m not arguing, I’m stating facts, and I am unconcerned with whether or not what I’m writing shows good debate skills.
-M: Your ‘facts’ are still in a debate format. This makes it debate, even if you say you are unconcerned with rhetoric.
L: We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their owndebate skill.
-M: I judge myself to be a good debate. […] Do you debate otherwise?
L: You’re asking me my opinion? I’m not debating. Debate is quite aprocess. Rather, I’m just saying what I see. It will ring a bell withsome people and not with others. At this point, I’m only looking toring a few bells, not to convince the world. And when it is time toconvince the world, it will probably not be me who is “debating.”There are people far better at that than me.-M: You take positions and counter-positions. This is debate.
M: If so, then do you debate for your own debating skills?
L: Mark, you are an idiot.
-M: If so, then I am one that appears to be having more fun than you.
L: Debate is a communication art,…
-M: Debate is about being right, and using the right rule structures.
L: No, that is correctness.-M: “Lets have a debate.” “No, I’d rather have a correctness.”
L: Debate is about convincing people.
-M: That is rhetoric. I’ll leave that to the politicians and ideologists. By contrast, I will debate for correctness of systems design.
L: I learned this the hard way, way back in grade school. Apparently, Mark missedthe lesson. I can understand, it was not formally taught. I wasright, I’d done my homework, I knew the issues. But somebody elsewon. Why? Beats me. Maybe they had nicer hair.
-M: You had an audience of lemmings.
L: That was grade school. But look at the public arena. Reagan ratherclearly won his debates with Carter. Was he right? Hardly. Carter wasbrilliant. But, as I said, debate is a communications skill.It is not about being right.[…]
-M: It is about being right.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 04:42 PM 11/16/2006, Mark wrote:
-M: It is about being right.Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wants to words, he seems to have no concept that language is a community affair. He imagines that he can be “right” all by himself, manipulating his own symbols and being pleased with them. But truth is not actually in symbols and the relationships of symbols, and the truth of a communication does not exist apart from the recipient.
Mark also imagines that I am debating with him. No, I’m commenting, and he is not my audience, though he can be a member of the audience, if he likes. This is not a secret from him, though he can obfuscate it for himself if he chooses.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:-M: It is about being right.
L: Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wantsto words,…-M: Yes, I can.
L:…he seems to have no concept that language is a communityaffair.
-M: “…community…” – by what measure?
L: He imagines that he can be “right” all by himself, manipulating his own symbols and being pleased with them.
-M: In an intersubjective context, as long as I follow the rule structures, that is what counts. In a subjective context, I can still be right on my own. Its still up to y’all to have ears to hear the truth.
L: But truth is not actually in symbols and the relationships of symbols, and thetruth of a communication does not exist apart from the recipient.
-M: This is why its not my job to be convincing, its other’s job to be convinced when the truth is presented to them.
L: Mark also imagines that I am debating with him.
-M: As I said, you are presenting positions and counterpositions,
this is debate.
Please maintain continuity by not ignoring my points.
L: No, I’m commenting, and he is not my audience, though he can be a member of the audience, if he likes. This is not a secret from him, though he can obfuscate it for himself if he chooses.
-M: After all of this,
where have you challenged SD2-S and/or its theorectical underpinnings?
Are you being a DODGE-MONKEY?
I still have standing points.
How about addressing those?
How about serving the field instead of fucking with an expert?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 05:18 PM 11/18/2006, Mark wrote:
Right. He can. His purpose is not communication, but “being right.” If his purpose in writing were communication, he would use the language of the recipient, unless possibly he always defines terms he is using outside the meanings used by the audience (which makes it more difficult for the audience.)-M: It is about being right.L: Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wantsto words,…-M: Yes, I can.
He is here, not to communicate with us, but to create a record of his “being right.”
I frequently fail to communicate with people; I am often writing something which is outside the boxes they know. But I consider it my responsibility to take this into account, wherever I can. That is, my purpose is communication, not “being right.” Of course I try to be right, but that is not how I choose my language, when I am paying attention. If the communication fails, my first assumption should be that I did not say it in a way that the audience could understand. Of course, I’m just like everyone else, I can easily assume that the problem is that they are idiots.
Or lemmings.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:-M: It is about being right.L: Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wantsto words,…-M: Yes, I can.
L: Right. He can. His purpose is not communication, but “being right.”If his purpose in writing were communication, he would use thelanguage of the recipient,…-M: I do use the language of the recipient.
L:… unless possibly he always defines terms heis using outside the meanings used by the audience (which makes itmore difficult for the audience.) He is here, not to communicate with us, but to create a record of his “being right.” I frequently fail to communicate with people;
-M: My audience is not commoners. It is those in the field of systems
design.
My audience is those who show their worthiness by either already
knowing technical terms,
or have the will to use Google.
L: I am often writing something which is outside the boxes they know. But I consider it myresponsibility to take this into account, wherever I can. That is, mypurpose is communication,…
-M: It is also your responsibility to communicate in a point-by-point format to maintain the linearity and continuity of discourse.
L: not “being right.” Of course I try to be right, but that is not how I choose my language, when I am paying attention. If the communication fails, my first assumption *should*be that I did not say it in a way that the audience could understand.Of course, I’m just like everyone else, I can easily assume that theproblem is that they are idiots. Or lemmings.
-M: …Or unworthy.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:-M: ‘Audience’ – WTF is that? Measured by what c-algorithm, and under what time limit? The truth often takes time to grow on people,Lomax wrote:L:[…] Rather, it is about attempting to establish that ideas are right to an audience.Mark wrote:[…]
L: …A good debater can often convince an audience that something is right that is actuallywrong. Indeed, in debate contests, what do you think they do?
-M: This is why I demarcate rhetorical debate from analytical
debate.
And SD2-S is about selecting those who would be more honest with their
methods,
as well as those who can see past deceptive and convoluted methods.
L: Do the debaters get to pick which side they argue on an issue? Indeed,sometimes, debaters who support one side of an issue may agree todebate with someone who supports a different side. This can maketheir jobs easier, sometimes. And sometimes it’s harder. It can beharder when you are right, sometimes.
-M: Being right is usually easier analyticly, but is usually harder rhetoricly.
L:…and it is judged by its effect on an audience.
-M: No, its judged by the truth of the points.
L: Nonsense. That’s not debate. That is “logical argument in support ofthe truth.”-M: Which is debate. Do you debate otherwise? What if you don’t convince me?
L: When Mark claimed that he had “whupped” another, he wasclearly placing this in the contest realm, where there are winnersand losers.
-M: Yes, the winner is the one with the burden of proliferating the
truth.
Such a person is a hero who must be respected.
L: Among those who seek the truth, there is no losing when someone else exposes more clearly the truth.
-M: The loser is one who doesn’t respect the teacher. Otherwise, yes, there are no losers when truth is proliferated.
L: For Mark’s edification, from Wikipedia:Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and positionrepresentational <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument>argument.
-M: OK.
L: Debate is a broader form of argument than<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument>logical argument,since it includes<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion>persuasion which appeals tothe emotional responses of an<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience>audience, and rules enablingpeople to discuss and decide on differences, within a frameworkdefining how they will interact.
-M: This is more complex than it seems.
L: Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth ofa debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants asdebaters.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_body>Deliberative bodiessuch as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of allsorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided byaudience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Formaldebates between candidates for elected office, such as the<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders_debate>leaders debates and the<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election_debates>U.S.presidential election debates, are common in<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>democracies.
-M: In the above example there is a predefined c-algorithm by which to
measure the audience approval.
Is there a predefined measure for ALL situations?
I don’t think so,
this is why debate being measured by audience approval is rather
slippery.
L: Shall we vote?
-M: Sure. I vote that my points are all true.I welcome ANYONE to vote that ANY of my points are untrue.
L: Not the issue. The issue is how well you debate them, and Mark hasasked the wrong question.-M: BS, it is about the points.
L: The question is, and I’m asking it and someone else can turn it into a formal poll if they care — I don’t — whether or not Mark has “won” his debate with anyone here? And I vote No.
-M: Cute. So where are my points wrong?
Where has ANYONE beat me with a SINGLE point?
I have argument SUPREMACY, and I challenge you to show otherwise.
You seem to want Mark to be wrong and his points to follow,
even if they are right. Emotional bias?
Is this because I have whupped you?
How about showing some respect to your teacher?
L: This has nothing to do with whether or not certain argumentspresented by Mark are right or wrong. Even a stopped clock is righttwice a day, and Mark is “correct” more often than that. Mark,indeed, has a rare understanding of delegable proxy, in certain ways,and, for example, I think he may be correct when he claims that “PageRank” is FAAV. But the way that he presents his arguments,practically nobody is convinced of anything he claims.
-M: How do you know? There are people here who understand Markov-algorithms, even if you are to entrenched to study them on your own.
L: FAAV can have unlimited proxy depth. Depends on what the primaryproxies do with their votes (that is, those who received votes in thesecret ballot election, which votes may be divided by the voter). Ifthey assign them to a proxy, who may assign them to a proxy, etc.,there is unlimited depth unless a depth rule is added, which I would oppose.Now, do I want DP to be “fractional” like FAAV? No. And I’m not goingto debate it here, I simply don’t have time.
-M: To recap, I support SD2-S as a form of FAAV because it gives the
voters more choice.
Lomax seems to want to limit choice out of convenience or ease of
calculation.
He prefers one proxy. By contrast, I want 2 or more general proxies,
and one or more specialist proxies.
L: Mark’s arguments have, however, convinced me that I need to examine more closely what happens when a proxy is inactive. And the solution I see is simply that clients may reach up beyond their proxy to the proxy of their proxy, and that proxies may reach down through their clients to their client’s clients.
-M: With SD2-S, since there are multiple proxies, the other proxies fill in for the inactive proxy. If less than 2 active proxies are selected, then RD voting power is given to underdogs to help smooth the rank distribution curve. The voter still maintains DD powers.
L: In FA/DP, this will happen naturally. I expect thatmailing lists or the like will be used by proxies for communicationwith their clients, and I expect some of these lists to include acouple of levels of client-proxy relationship. That is, a proxy maystart a list for his or her clients, and the list may allow directposting, generally, from more than one layer of clients. I see, in anactive organization, relatively few direct clients per proxy, andmailing lists can handle much more traffic than what is involved in asingle proxy-client relationship.
-M: “…a proxy may start a list for his or her clients, and the list
may allow…”
May, may, may.
If you don’t have a ‘turn-key’ system, then why should the user develop
one?
This is why I am pushing for a SD2-S-Wiki.
L: So both client and proxy may belong to a list which includes a whole tree of clients, but which remains below the size where traffic becomes a problem. This whole tree feeds a high-level proxy. And the clients immediately below him or her will themselves be members of even higher-level lists. The central organization doesn’t need to deal with any of this. It iswhat the proxies and clients will do themselves, all they need to dois see examples, and they will imitate it. Or they will do something better.
M: ‘…examples…’ – what I like to hear. :)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer