InstaGov - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2026-02-23T13:48:27Z

Woozle: moved "narrative" to the 2nd column; removed obsolete links

<big>'''InstaGov''' is a set of tools for instant self-governance via computer network. It is currently under development. It will be open-source and distributed/federated.</big>
__NOTOC__
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Goals==
* to invent functional and productive techniques of stateless (non-hierarchical) democratic self-governance
* to test and demonstrate these techniques starting on a small scale and working progressively upward
* to watch for exploit holes and "gaming" of these implementations, and work out ways to defeat these while they are still small
* to eventually make traditional government both unnecessary and irrelevant
In order to work towards these goals, it is necessary to better understand the [[mechanics of power]].

Restrictions on the sampling of public opinion, and its conversion into binding decisions, are a thing which may once have been necessary but which is now basically preventing democracy from taking place.
"restrictions on the sampling of public opinion" means:
# Elections only happen at set times, with long intervals in between
# What or who people can vote for is determined by those already in power
# The means of expression on votable issues is limited to favoring a single one, rather than expressing the degree to which one approves or disapproves of each
Proposed changes (there are some details to work out in each of these, but this is the basic idea):
: A. Any voter should be able to [[liquid agenda|propose agenda items at any time]]
: B. Any voter should be able to proxy their decisions in any given subject area to another voter of their choosing (subject-specific liquid democracy)
: C. (this part is not logically required, but I think it will be important) There should be a [[debate mapper|system of rational debate]] available, to which issues of sufficient importance should be subjected before they can be enacted.
| valign=top |
==A Narrative==
What if a bunch of people:
* agreed to contribute, say, 1% of their disposable income every month towards a common pot
* [[liquid democracy|voted]] (via self-hosted software) for how the money should be used
* e.g. they could use it to hire one or more people to work on particular things they all agree would be a good use of that money
* if particular problems required a lot of study and decisionmaking, they could delegate individuals to make those decisions
* ...with the caveat that if the group decided they didn't like the decisions that were being made, or the level of transparency into the process, they could replace that person at any time (subject, perhaps, to reasonable guarantees of adequate warning and income stability)

'''And then''': what if there were a lot of groups like this, selectively working together the same way that fedi instances do, and they hired people to work out collaborative deals across multiple groups where they would each share a portion of their resources in order to produce something that wouldn't really have been affordable for any individual group?

'''And then'''... (should I spin this out further?)

''Feel free to comment on [https://toot.cat/@woozle/115987052984521109 this post].''
| valign=top |
==External Pages==
* [[htyp:InstaGov|design documents]]
* [[issuepedia:InstaGov|philosophy]]
|}
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Modules==
* [[liquid agenda]]
* [[debate mapper]]
* [[P2P Accountability Enforcement]]
* [[categorization]]
* [[proxy voting]]
** [[weighted proxy voting|weighted]]
| valign=top |

==Methodology==
* [[cooperatives]]
* [[governance methods]]: alternatives
* [[inquest]]
* [[liquid democracy]]
* [[liquid representation]]
* [[rational debate]]
* [[stages of change]]
* [[voter enclave]]s
| valign=top |

==Applications==
* [[democratic militia]]
* [[federated retail]]
* [[structured debate]]: a set of rules for [[rational debate]]
* solutions to the [[taxation problem]]:
** [[co-operatization of large companies]]
** [[opt-in market socialism]]
** [[socialized land ownership]]
| valign=top |
==Presentation==
* [[Collaborative network]]
* [[Circling the wagons]]
* [[International Citizens' Union]]
* [[Premises]]
* [[Structural overview]]
* [[Social business coalition]]
* [[Solutions]]
* [[US House of Commons]]
|}

==Related Projects==
* [https://citizenos.com/product/ CitizenOS]: proprietary decisionmaking platform
* [http://democracyos.org/ DemocracyOS]: liquid democracy implementation ([https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/06/12/case-against-bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-and-philanthropy-we-know-it via] [https://social.coop/users/ntnsndr/updates/4088 via author on Mastodon]): code is on GitHub
* Liquid Agenda and the Debate Mapper could probably benefit from having a UI like [https://github.com/Agora-Project/agora-meteor this], at least as an option. ([https://witches.town/@Angle author on Mastodon])
* '''[http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-humanity-online-project The Humanity Online Project]'''
* '''[https://love.loomio.org/real-democracy-needs-to-include-everyone Loomio]'''
** [https://loomio.coop/ software co-op]
* '''[[Liquid Feedback]]''' (a project of the Pirate Party)
* '''Make Your Laws''': [http://makeyourlaws.org main site] .. [http://wiki.makeyourlaws.org wiki] .. [https://plus.google.com/100183759660923071401/about Google+]
===proprietary / centralized===
* [http://www.deliberator.com/ Deliberator]: very similar to [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|Liquid Agenda]], but more heavily moderated and produced
* [https://blog.kialo.com/kialo-hello-world-d12ac78a320a Kialo]: similar to [[debate mapper]]
* [https://www.loomio.org/ Loomio]: "a user-friendly tool for group decision-making. Creating a world where it’s easy for anyone to participate in decisions that affect them." Subscription is pay-what-you-like; looks like interaction may be limited to "groups".
* [http://participedia.net/en Participedia] "open global knowledge community for researchers and practitioners in the field of democratic innovation and public engagement."
* [https://www.popvox.com/ PopVox] ([https://plus.google.com/115845584660035325057 Google+]): tell US Congress your opinion of bills
* [http://participedia.net/en/organizations/wikivote WikiVote] "Russian non-governmental organization which goal is to develop effective means of citizens’ participation in lawmaking and strategic planning"
* [http://thespark.org/ The Spark] "Users post and vote on PROBLEMS that we face as a global community. The most popular problems are voted to the top. Users then post and vote on SOLUTIONS so that the community can take ACTION." - sounds similar to [[liquid agenda]]
===techniques===
* [[wikipedia:Participatory politics]]: hierarchical representation carried out more thoroughly
** [http://web.archive.org/web/20140327013949/http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/5490 Professional Politicians Beware!] by Aaron Swartz ([http://50.81.205.197/photo_album/chron/2017/2017_02_21-book_review-the_boy_who_could_change_the_world-the_writings_of_aaron_swartz/politics.html via])
* [[wikipedia:Rational consensus]]: the method is not currently described in the article, but perhaps the article will be expanded soon. A user has described this system thusly: "ideas are based on known facts and good practices."

===discussion===
* [http://online-governance.quora.com/ Quora]
===plans===
* [https://sites.google.com/site/equalityincorporated/ Equality Incorporated] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/112240283217111217636/posts/DKe7hDFuq38 discussion])
* [http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan Wolf PAC]
* '''2013-07-31''' [http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-democrats-can-reclaim-north-carolina-government/Content?oid=3685711 How Democrats can reclaim North Carolina government]

Main Page

2026-02-01T20:43:08Z

Woozle:

<big>'''InstaGov''' is a set of tools for instant self-governance via computer network. It is currently under development. It will be open-source and distributed/federated.</big>
__NOTOC__
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==A Narrative==
What if a bunch of people:
* agreed to contribute, say, 1% of their disposable income every month towards a common pot
* [[liquid democracy|voted]] (via self-hosted software) for how the money should be used
* e.g. they could use it to hire one or more people to work on particular things they all agree would be a good use of that money
* if particular problems required a lot of study and decisionmaking, they could delegate individuals to make those decisions
* ...with the caveat that if the group decided they didn't like the decisions that were being made, or the level of transparency into the process, they could replace that person at any time (subject, perhaps, to reasonable guarantees of adequate warning and income stability)

'''And then''': what if there were a lot of groups like this, selectively working together the same way that fedi instances do, and they hired people to work out collaborative deals across multiple groups where they would each share a portion of their resources in order to produce something that wouldn't really have been affordable for any individual group?

'''And then'''... (should I spin this out further?)

''Feel free to comment on [https://toot.cat/@woozle/115987052984521109 this post].''
| valign=top |
==Goals==
* to invent functional and productive techniques of stateless (non-hierarchical) democratic self-governance
* to test and demonstrate these techniques starting on a small scale and working progressively upward
* to watch for exploit holes and "gaming" of these implementations, and work out ways to defeat these while they are still small
* to eventually make traditional government both unnecessary and irrelevant
In order to work towards these goals, it is necessary to better understand the [[mechanics of power]].

Restrictions on the sampling of public opinion, and its conversion into binding decisions, are a thing which may once have been necessary but which is now basically preventing democracy from taking place.
"restrictions on the sampling of public opinion" means:
# Elections only happen at set times, with long intervals in between
# What or who people can vote for is determined by those already in power
# The means of expression on votable issues is limited to favoring a single one, rather than expressing the degree to which one approves or disapproves of each
Proposed changes (there are some details to work out in each of these, but this is the basic idea):
: A. Any voter should be able to [[liquid agenda|propose agenda items at any time]]
: B. Any voter should be able to proxy their decisions in any given subject area to another voter of their choosing (subject-specific liquid democracy)
: C. (this part is not logically required, but I think it will be important) There should be a [[debate mapper|system of rational debate]] available, to which issues of sufficient importance should be subjected before they can be enacted.
| valign=top |
==External Pages==
* [[htyp:InstaGov|Design documents]]
* [[issuepedia:InstaGov|Philosophy]]
* [http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/igov Project manager / bug tracker]
* Google+: <echo raw now><a href="https://plus.google.com/111304337631160193138" rel="publisher" class="external text">page</a></echo> and [https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117423839385292311095 community]
|}
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Modules==
* [[liquid agenda]]
* [[debate mapper]]
* [[P2P Accountability Enforcement]]
* [[categorization]]
* [[proxy voting]]
** [[weighted proxy voting|weighted]]
| valign=top |

==Methodology==
* [[cooperatives]]
* [[governance methods]]: alternatives
* [[inquest]]
* [[liquid democracy]]
* [[liquid representation]]
* [[rational debate]]
* [[stages of change]]
* [[voter enclave]]s
| valign=top |

==Applications==
* [[democratic militia]]
* [[federated retail]]
* [[structured debate]]: a set of rules for [[rational debate]]
* solutions to the [[taxation problem]]:
** [[co-operatization of large companies]]
** [[opt-in market socialism]]
** [[socialized land ownership]]
| valign=top |
==Presentation==
* [[Collaborative network]]
* [[Circling the wagons]]
* [[International Citizens' Union]]
* [[Premises]]
* [[Structural overview]]
* [[Social business coalition]]
* [[Solutions]]
* [[US House of Commons]]
|}

==Related Projects==
* [https://citizenos.com/product/ CitizenOS]: proprietary decisionmaking platform
* [http://democracyos.org/ DemocracyOS]: liquid democracy implementation ([https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/06/12/case-against-bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-and-philanthropy-we-know-it via] [https://social.coop/users/ntnsndr/updates/4088 via author on Mastodon]): code is on GitHub
* Liquid Agenda and the Debate Mapper could probably benefit from having a UI like [https://github.com/Agora-Project/agora-meteor this], at least as an option. ([https://witches.town/@Angle author on Mastodon])
* '''[http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-humanity-online-project The Humanity Online Project]'''
* '''[https://love.loomio.org/real-democracy-needs-to-include-everyone Loomio]'''
** [https://loomio.coop/ software co-op]
* '''[[Liquid Feedback]]''' (a project of the Pirate Party)
* '''Make Your Laws''': [http://makeyourlaws.org main site] .. [http://wiki.makeyourlaws.org wiki] .. [https://plus.google.com/100183759660923071401/about Google+]
===proprietary / centralized===
* [http://www.deliberator.com/ Deliberator]: very similar to [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|Liquid Agenda]], but more heavily moderated and produced
* [https://blog.kialo.com/kialo-hello-world-d12ac78a320a Kialo]: similar to [[debate mapper]]
* [https://www.loomio.org/ Loomio]: "a user-friendly tool for group decision-making. Creating a world where it’s easy for anyone to participate in decisions that affect them." Subscription is pay-what-you-like; looks like interaction may be limited to "groups".
* [http://participedia.net/en Participedia] "open global knowledge community for researchers and practitioners in the field of democratic innovation and public engagement."
* [https://www.popvox.com/ PopVox] ([https://plus.google.com/115845584660035325057 Google+]): tell US Congress your opinion of bills
* [http://participedia.net/en/organizations/wikivote WikiVote] "Russian non-governmental organization which goal is to develop effective means of citizens’ participation in lawmaking and strategic planning"
* [http://thespark.org/ The Spark] "Users post and vote on PROBLEMS that we face as a global community. The most popular problems are voted to the top. Users then post and vote on SOLUTIONS so that the community can take ACTION." - sounds similar to [[liquid agenda]]
===techniques===
* [[wikipedia:Participatory politics]]: hierarchical representation carried out more thoroughly
** [http://web.archive.org/web/20140327013949/http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/5490 Professional Politicians Beware!] by Aaron Swartz ([http://50.81.205.197/photo_album/chron/2017/2017_02_21-book_review-the_boy_who_could_change_the_world-the_writings_of_aaron_swartz/politics.html via])
* [[wikipedia:Rational consensus]]: the method is not currently described in the article, but perhaps the article will be expanded soon. A user has described this system thusly: "ideas are based on known facts and good practices."

===discussion===
* [http://online-governance.quora.com/ Quora]
===plans===
* [https://sites.google.com/site/equalityincorporated/ Equality Incorporated] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/112240283217111217636/posts/DKe7hDFuq38 discussion])
* [http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan Wolf PAC]
* '''2013-07-31''' [http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-democrats-can-reclaim-north-carolina-government/Content?oid=3685711 How Democrats can reclaim North Carolina government]

Main Page

2026-02-01T20:41:53Z

Woozle:

<big>'''InstaGov''' is a set of tools for instant self-governance via computer network. It is currently under development. It will be open-source and distributed/federated.</big>
__NOTOC__
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==A Narrative==
What if a bunch of people:
* agreed to contribute, say, 1% of their disposable income every month towards a common pot
* [[liquid democracy|voted]] (via self-hosted software) for how the money should be used
* e.g. they could use it to hire one or more people to work on particular things they all agree would be a good use of that money
* if particular problems required a lot of study and decisionmaking, they could delegate individuals to make those decisions
* ...with the caveat that if the group decided they didn't like the decisions that were being made, or the level of transparency into the process, they could replace that person at any time (subject, perhaps, to reasonable guarantees of adequate warning and income stability)

'''And then''': what if there were a lot of groups like this, selectively working together the same way that fedi instances do, and they hired people to work out collaborative deals across multiple groups where they would each share a portion of their resources in order to produce something that wouldn't really have been affordable for any individual group?

'''And then'''... (should I spin this out further?)
| valign=top |
==Goals==
* to invent functional and productive techniques of stateless (non-hierarchical) democratic self-governance
* to test and demonstrate these techniques starting on a small scale and working progressively upward
* to watch for exploit holes and "gaming" of these implementations, and work out ways to defeat these while they are still small
* to eventually make traditional government both unnecessary and irrelevant
In order to work towards these goals, it is necessary to better understand the [[mechanics of power]].

Restrictions on the sampling of public opinion, and its conversion into binding decisions, are a thing which may once have been necessary but which is now basically preventing democracy from taking place.
"restrictions on the sampling of public opinion" means:
# Elections only happen at set times, with long intervals in between
# What or who people can vote for is determined by those already in power
# The means of expression on votable issues is limited to favoring a single one, rather than expressing the degree to which one approves or disapproves of each
Proposed changes (there are some details to work out in each of these, but this is the basic idea):
: A. Any voter should be able to [[liquid agenda|propose agenda items at any time]]
: B. Any voter should be able to proxy their decisions in any given subject area to another voter of their choosing (subject-specific liquid democracy)
: C. (this part is not logically required, but I think it will be important) There should be a [[debate mapper|system of rational debate]] available, to which issues of sufficient importance should be subjected before they can be enacted.
| valign=top |
==External Pages==
* [[htyp:InstaGov|Design documents]]
* [[issuepedia:InstaGov|Philosophy]]
* [http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/igov Project manager / bug tracker]
* Google+: <echo raw now><a href="https://plus.google.com/111304337631160193138" rel="publisher" class="external text">page</a></echo> and [https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117423839385292311095 community]
|}
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Modules==
* [[liquid agenda]]
* [[debate mapper]]
* [[P2P Accountability Enforcement]]
* [[categorization]]
* [[proxy voting]]
** [[weighted proxy voting|weighted]]
| valign=top |

==Methodology==
* [[cooperatives]]
* [[governance methods]]: alternatives
* [[inquest]]
* [[liquid democracy]]
* [[liquid representation]]
* [[rational debate]]
* [[stages of change]]
* [[voter enclave]]s
| valign=top |

==Applications==
* [[democratic militia]]
* [[federated retail]]
* [[structured debate]]: a set of rules for [[rational debate]]
* solutions to the [[taxation problem]]:
** [[co-operatization of large companies]]
** [[opt-in market socialism]]
** [[socialized land ownership]]
| valign=top |
==Presentation==
* [[Collaborative network]]
* [[Circling the wagons]]
* [[International Citizens' Union]]
* [[Premises]]
* [[Structural overview]]
* [[Social business coalition]]
* [[Solutions]]
* [[US House of Commons]]
|}

==Related Projects==
* [https://citizenos.com/product/ CitizenOS]: proprietary decisionmaking platform
* [http://democracyos.org/ DemocracyOS]: liquid democracy implementation ([https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/06/12/case-against-bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-and-philanthropy-we-know-it via] [https://social.coop/users/ntnsndr/updates/4088 via author on Mastodon]): code is on GitHub
* Liquid Agenda and the Debate Mapper could probably benefit from having a UI like [https://github.com/Agora-Project/agora-meteor this], at least as an option. ([https://witches.town/@Angle author on Mastodon])
* '''[http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-humanity-online-project The Humanity Online Project]'''
* '''[https://love.loomio.org/real-democracy-needs-to-include-everyone Loomio]'''
** [https://loomio.coop/ software co-op]
* '''[[Liquid Feedback]]''' (a project of the Pirate Party)
* '''Make Your Laws''': [http://makeyourlaws.org main site] .. [http://wiki.makeyourlaws.org wiki] .. [https://plus.google.com/100183759660923071401/about Google+]
===proprietary / centralized===
* [http://www.deliberator.com/ Deliberator]: very similar to [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|Liquid Agenda]], but more heavily moderated and produced
* [https://blog.kialo.com/kialo-hello-world-d12ac78a320a Kialo]: similar to [[debate mapper]]
* [https://www.loomio.org/ Loomio]: "a user-friendly tool for group decision-making. Creating a world where it’s easy for anyone to participate in decisions that affect them." Subscription is pay-what-you-like; looks like interaction may be limited to "groups".
* [http://participedia.net/en Participedia] "open global knowledge community for researchers and practitioners in the field of democratic innovation and public engagement."
* [https://www.popvox.com/ PopVox] ([https://plus.google.com/115845584660035325057 Google+]): tell US Congress your opinion of bills
* [http://participedia.net/en/organizations/wikivote WikiVote] "Russian non-governmental organization which goal is to develop effective means of citizens’ participation in lawmaking and strategic planning"
* [http://thespark.org/ The Spark] "Users post and vote on PROBLEMS that we face as a global community. The most popular problems are voted to the top. Users then post and vote on SOLUTIONS so that the community can take ACTION." - sounds similar to [[liquid agenda]]
===techniques===
* [[wikipedia:Participatory politics]]: hierarchical representation carried out more thoroughly
** [http://web.archive.org/web/20140327013949/http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/5490 Professional Politicians Beware!] by Aaron Swartz ([http://50.81.205.197/photo_album/chron/2017/2017_02_21-book_review-the_boy_who_could_change_the_world-the_writings_of_aaron_swartz/politics.html via])
* [[wikipedia:Rational consensus]]: the method is not currently described in the article, but perhaps the article will be expanded soon. A user has described this system thusly: "ideas are based on known facts and good practices."

===discussion===
* [http://online-governance.quora.com/ Quora]
===plans===
* [https://sites.google.com/site/equalityincorporated/ Equality Incorporated] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/112240283217111217636/posts/DKe7hDFuq38 discussion])
* [http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan Wolf PAC]
* '''2013-07-31''' [http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-democrats-can-reclaim-north-carolina-government/Content?oid=3685711 How Democrats can reclaim North Carolina government]

Main Page

2024-06-28T19:10:16Z

Woozle:

<big>'''InstaGov''' is a set of tools for instant self-governance via computer network. It is currently under development. It will be open-source and distributed/federated.</big>
__NOTOC__
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Goals==
* to invent functional and productive techniques of stateless (non-hierarchical) democratic self-governance
* to test and demonstrate these techniques starting on a small scale and working progressively upward
* to watch for exploit holes and "gaming" of these implementations, and work out ways to defeat these while they are still small
* to eventually make traditional government both unnecessary and irrelevant
In order to work towards these goals, it is necessary to better understand the [[mechanics of power]].

Restrictions on the sampling of public opinion, and its conversion into binding decisions, are a thing which may once have been necessary but which is now basically preventing democracy from taking place.
"restrictions on the sampling of public opinion" means:
# Elections only happen at set times, with long intervals in between
# What or who people can vote for is determined by those already in power
# The means of expression on votable issues is limited to favoring a single one, rather than expressing the degree to which one approves or disapproves of each
Proposed changes (there are some details to work out in each of these, but this is the basic idea):
: A. Any voter should be able to [[liquid agenda|propose agenda items at any time]]
: B. Any voter should be able to proxy their decisions in any given subject area to another voter of their choosing (subject-specific liquid democracy)
: C. (this part is not logically required, but I think it will be important) There should be a [[debate mapper|system of rational debate]] available, to which issues of sufficient importance should be subjected before they can be enacted.
| valign=top |
==External Pages==
* [[htyp:InstaGov|Design documents]]
* [[issuepedia:InstaGov|Philosophy]]
* [http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/igov Project manager / bug tracker]
* Google+: <echo raw now><a href="https://plus.google.com/111304337631160193138" rel="publisher" class="external text">page</a></echo> and [https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117423839385292311095 community]
|}
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Modules==
* [[liquid agenda]]
* [[debate mapper]]
* [[P2P Accountability Enforcement]]
* [[categorization]]
* [[proxy voting]]
** [[weighted proxy voting|weighted]]
| valign=top |

==Methodology==
* [[cooperatives]]
* [[governance methods]]: alternatives
* [[inquest]]
* [[liquid democracy]]
* [[liquid representation]]
* [[rational debate]]
* [[stages of change]]
* [[voter enclave]]s
| valign=top |

==Applications==
* [[democratic militia]]
* [[federated retail]]
* [[structured debate]]: a set of rules for [[rational debate]]
* solutions to the [[taxation problem]]:
** [[co-operatization of large companies]]
** [[opt-in market socialism]]
** [[socialized land ownership]]
| valign=top |
==Presentation==
* [[Collaborative network]]
* [[Circling the wagons]]
* [[International Citizens' Union]]
* [[Premises]]
* [[Structural overview]]
* [[Social business coalition]]
* [[Solutions]]
* [[US House of Commons]]
|}

==Related Projects==
* [https://citizenos.com/product/ CitizenOS]: proprietary decisionmaking platform
* [http://democracyos.org/ DemocracyOS]: liquid democracy implementation ([https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/06/12/case-against-bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-and-philanthropy-we-know-it via] [https://social.coop/users/ntnsndr/updates/4088 via author on Mastodon]): code is on GitHub
* Liquid Agenda and the Debate Mapper could probably benefit from having a UI like [https://github.com/Agora-Project/agora-meteor this], at least as an option. ([https://witches.town/@Angle author on Mastodon])
* '''[http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-humanity-online-project The Humanity Online Project]'''
* '''[https://love.loomio.org/real-democracy-needs-to-include-everyone Loomio]'''
** [https://loomio.coop/ software co-op]
* '''[[Liquid Feedback]]''' (a project of the Pirate Party)
* '''Make Your Laws''': [http://makeyourlaws.org main site] .. [http://wiki.makeyourlaws.org wiki] .. [https://plus.google.com/100183759660923071401/about Google+]
===proprietary / centralized===
* [http://www.deliberator.com/ Deliberator]: very similar to [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|Liquid Agenda]], but more heavily moderated and produced
* [https://blog.kialo.com/kialo-hello-world-d12ac78a320a Kialo]: similar to [[debate mapper]]
* [https://www.loomio.org/ Loomio]: "a user-friendly tool for group decision-making. Creating a world where it’s easy for anyone to participate in decisions that affect them." Subscription is pay-what-you-like; looks like interaction may be limited to "groups".
* [http://participedia.net/en Participedia] "open global knowledge community for researchers and practitioners in the field of democratic innovation and public engagement."
* [https://www.popvox.com/ PopVox] ([https://plus.google.com/115845584660035325057 Google+]): tell US Congress your opinion of bills
* [http://participedia.net/en/organizations/wikivote WikiVote] "Russian non-governmental organization which goal is to develop effective means of citizens’ participation in lawmaking and strategic planning"
* [http://thespark.org/ The Spark] "Users post and vote on PROBLEMS that we face as a global community. The most popular problems are voted to the top. Users then post and vote on SOLUTIONS so that the community can take ACTION." - sounds similar to [[liquid agenda]]
===techniques===
* [[wikipedia:Participatory politics]]: hierarchical representation carried out more thoroughly
** [http://web.archive.org/web/20140327013949/http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/5490 Professional Politicians Beware!] by Aaron Swartz ([http://50.81.205.197/photo_album/chron/2017/2017_02_21-book_review-the_boy_who_could_change_the_world-the_writings_of_aaron_swartz/politics.html via])
* [[wikipedia:Rational consensus]]: the method is not currently described in the article, but perhaps the article will be expanded soon. A user has described this system thusly: "ideas are based on known facts and good practices."

===discussion===
* [http://online-governance.quora.com/ Quora]
===plans===
* [https://sites.google.com/site/equalityincorporated/ Equality Incorporated] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/112240283217111217636/posts/DKe7hDFuq38 discussion])
* [http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan Wolf PAC]
* '''2013-07-31''' [http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-democrats-can-reclaim-north-carolina-government/Content?oid=3685711 How Democrats can reclaim North Carolina government]

Debate mapper

2021-11-07T13:21:07Z

Woozle: /* Pages */

[[category:modules]]
==About==
The [[debate mapper]], aka '''[[truth]] mapper''', is software designed to provide a user-friendly graphical/web interface for [[structured debate]].

Structured debate provides a system for keeping track of the status of every point and counterpoint that has been raised in a debate.

The Debate Mapper module allows multiple participants to make contributions simultaneously (which would not be possible in a spoken debate), permitting much more thorough fact-checking than in other forms of debate and ensuring that all positions have an opportunity to assert their objections to any given conclusion.

Ideally, the end result would be that everyone could agree on the correct (best, most likely, most reasonable) answer to any given question. In practice, of course, there will be a few people who refuse to recognize illogic (or insist that correct logic must be wrong, probably because it leads to answers they don't like); there are multiple ways of dealing with this conflict.

The fact that the debate is reduced to a cascading set of simple premises and conclusions should help minimize ''unintentional'' illogic.

The debate mapper is just part of a toolkit which is intended to be assembled and interconnected into a sort of [[expository ecosystem]] which will generally help promote [[rational decisionmaking]]:
* Flat-out erroneous logic, as well as deliberately misleading – i.e. {{l/ip|bad faith}} – arguments, will need to be handled with a [[Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement|reputation system]]. For use within a trusted group, however, the debate mapper alone should be a valuable tool for getting to the truth of complicated matters.
* Actual decisionmaking based on the outcomes of structured debates is intended to be made via the [[liquid agenda]] module.
===Pages===
* [[/FRO]] (Frequently Raised Objections)
* [[/goals]]

===Premises===
The design of the debate/truth mapper is based on the following premises about [[truth]]:
# There exist methods of reasoning which are more likely than others to produce results in accordance with reality, despite observer bias.
# In general, scientific methodologies have been shown to be better at this than any others currently at our disposal.
# Training oneself to take the determinations of scientific methodologies seriously, rather than allowing any of many possible biases to override them when forming our beliefs, is a matter of individual training.
# The same is true whether we're talking about subject traditionally considered "scientific" (physics, chemistry, maths) or those of a more humanistic nature (psychology, sociology, politics).

===Process===
* Anyone may start a debate at any time; debate starts with an assertion of fact (the "prime assertion"), preferably defended by supporting arguments.
* Anyone may add [[issuepedia:Argument/counter|counterarguments]] or additional supporting arguments to this assertion at any time.
* Each supporting or countering argument is itself an assertion, and may be further supported or countered at any time.
* Debate continues indefinitely.
** If new information is discovered which affects the debate, this information can be added immediately, with the potential to immediately change the debate's outcome (and hence the outcomes of any other debates which depend on this one, if others are linked to it; see [[#Ecosystem Features]]).
** The design currently presumes that the final state of the prime assertion will eventually settle down to being true or false for long periods of time, as nobody will have any additional points to add; in practicality, decisions based on the debate's outcome will need to be made at specific times, and debates should be held in such a way that the final state will be likely to have settled down by the time any decision must be made.
** There should probably also be a minimum amount of time between the last state-change and the actual decision, so as to negate the effects of last-minute [[/counterpoint spam]]ming.

Individual debate venues may wish to make changes or additions to the procedural rules in order to accommodate their specific needs and circumstances.

==Links==
* [[htyp:InstaGov/Debate_Mapper|technical documentation]]
* <s>[http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/debate-mapper project manager]</s> need a Ruby on Rails expert to fix that...
* <s>The latest demo version is on ICMS: {{l/icms|Exhibits/debate}}</s> offline as of late 2016
* Issuepedia has some related pages:
** Example debates: {{l/ip|Category:Debates}}
** Earlier explanations are at {{l/ip|structured debate}} and {{l/ip|Issuepedia:Structured Debate}}
** {{l/ip|Issuepedia:Dispute Resolution Technology}} includes links to similar projects.

==History==
* The debate mapper was inspired in part by the (fictional) [[decision duel]] concept.
==Notes==
To be checked (from [http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/06/against-interminable-arguments/#comment-332813 here]):
* [http://idebate.org/debatabase Debatabase] - [http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/politics/house-believes-all-nations-have-right-nuclear-weapons sample debate]
* [http://www.procon.org ProCon] - [http://gun-control.procon.org sample debate]
* [http://www.debate.org Debate.org] - [http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-creationism-be-taught-in-public-schools-alongside-evolution sample debate]

Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement

2021-05-03T12:25:55Z

Woozle: layout tweaks

==About==
[[Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement]] is a methodology for sharply reducing the problem of posting content in bad faith (including both outright verbal abuse as well as abuses that are harder to spot, such as {{l/ip|sea-lioning}}) by allowing users to collectively delegate other trusted users to rate comments and commenters as to their credibility and appropriateness. It generally increases per-user accountability for abuse, but with the source of that accountability being other users rather than a central authority (with all the bottlenecking and [[power-concentration]] that implies).
==Pages==
<big>
* '''{{l/sub|purpose}}''' - this needs to be a bit more general
* '''{{l/sub|mechanism}}''' - the quasi-technical details
</big>
==Notes==
Things that credibility management ''should'' be able to defeat or at least control:
* [[sea-lioning]] (see {{issuepedia|sea-lioning}}): appears civil and polite on the surface, so may be difficult to judge without understanding the full context
* [[brigading]] -- though it may take a combination of credibility management and [[debate mapping]]:
** '''2015-07-17''' [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/07/17/there-are-good-reasons-ive-never-been-a-fan-of-reddit/ There are good reasons I’ve never been a fan of Reddit]
* [[evaporative cooling]]:
** '''2010-10-10''' [http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sundays-2-the-evaporative-cooling-effect/ Social Software Sundays #2 – The Evaporative Cooling Effect]
* [[click-farming]] ...except I'm not understanding the value of having fake followers:
** '''2015-04-20''' [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121551/bot-bubble-click-farms-have-inflated-social-media-currency How Click Farms Have Inflated Social Media Currency]
*** private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/MGmWGw3vUBx here]
* [[online harassment]]
** '''2014-10-09''' [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-unsafety-net-how-social-media-turned-against-women/381261/ The Unsafety Net: How Social Media Turned Against Women] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/+CindyBrown/posts/8Ahnx7mVciy via])

Credibility management is beginning to look potentially useful for rating subjective quality of aesthetic works. Some discussion of that application is here:
* '''2014-06-20''' [http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28jfk4/content_rating_moderation_and_ranking_systems/ Content rating, moderation, and ranking systems: some non-brief thoughts] (Edward Morbius).
** Related: '''2014-09-21''' [http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2h0h81 Specifying a Universal Online Media Payment Syndication System]
*** which was a sequel to: '''2014-01-08''' [http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modest_proposal_universal_online_media_payment/# A Modest Proposal: Universal Online Media Payment Syndication]
* '''2012-02-08''' [http://torrentfreak.com/tribler-makes-bittorrent-impossible-to-shut-down-120208/ Tribler Makes BitTorrent Impossible to Shut Down] ([http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/piracy-now-unstoppable-new-file-sharing-network-cant-be-shut-down/ via]) "Where most torrent sites have a team of moderators to delete viruses, malware and fake files, Tribler '''uses crowd-sourcing to keep the network clean.''' Content is verified by user generated “channels”, which can be “liked” by others. When more people like a channel, the associated torrents get a boost in the search results."
* '''2011-02-05''' [http://www.quora.com/What-is-Quoras-algorithm-formula-for-determining-the-ordering-ranking-of-answers-on-a-question What is Quora's algorithm/formula for determining the ordering/ranking of answers on a question?]: this is a similar concept on the surface, but lacks some important elements:
** no proxying/layering -- all ratings are direct
** no personalized credibility ratings (PCRs)
** minimal granularity, i.e. only two possible values (-1/+1) for each ranking

Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement/purpose

2020-10-26T19:08:39Z

Woozle: /* Notes */

It is easy for malicious, misinformed, and uncomprehending users to greatly reduce the efficacy of civil discussion. I'll refer to these collectively as "malusers" for now, although the majority are probably not deliberately or knowingly malicious.

Malusers generally fall into one or more of the following groups:
* [[issuepedia:discussion troll|troll]]s
* astroturfers
* propaganda victims
* {{l/same|abuse|abusers / dominators}}

The involvement of individual malusers in a discussion frequently has the following adverse effects:
* throwing the conversation off-topic
* injecting false but believable information
* making false claims that require extensive research to refute
* failing to understand the arguments of others

It should be noted that many malusers are known for being unreasonable only on specific topics, and entirely reasonable on others.

While blocking and banning (currently supported by most social media venues) are generally effective ways of dealing with malusers when they are identified, those techniques have a number of shortcomings:
* it is too easy to block someone who is making valid arguments that you happen to disagree with
* blocking is fundamentally hierarchical:
** one person owns a thread or post, and has the sole authority to block individuals from commenting on it
** a group of admins have the sole authority to ban individuals from posting in that group; there is also typically a single owner or founder who can demote or block admins
* blocking is a very crude level of control:
** typically, the only way to block someone from posting on a given thread is a person-to-person block -- preventing the two of you from seeing ''anything'' said by the other
** blocking someone from posting in a group prevents them from participating in ''any'' discussions in that group, including topics on which they are more reasonable
* once blocked, there is no reliable process by which a reformed maluser can regain posting permission

A better solution is needed.
==Notes==
* '''2020-10-24''' [https://twitter.com/unormal/status/1319891914066481153 unormal@twitter.com] ([https://elekk.xyz/@stolas/105101278158432978 via]): how one gaming community deals with right-wing malusers

Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement/purpose

2020-10-26T19:07:45Z

Woozle:

It is easy for malicious, misinformed, and uncomprehending users to greatly reduce the efficacy of civil discussion. I'll refer to these collectively as "malusers" for now, although the majority are probably not deliberately or knowingly malicious.

Malusers generally fall into one or more of the following groups:
* [[issuepedia:discussion troll|troll]]s
* astroturfers
* propaganda victims
* {{l/same|abuse|abusers / dominators}}

The involvement of individual malusers in a discussion frequently has the following adverse effects:
* throwing the conversation off-topic
* injecting false but believable information
* making false claims that require extensive research to refute
* failing to understand the arguments of others

It should be noted that many malusers are known for being unreasonable only on specific topics, and entirely reasonable on others.

While blocking and banning (currently supported by most social media venues) are generally effective ways of dealing with malusers when they are identified, those techniques have a number of shortcomings:
* it is too easy to block someone who is making valid arguments that you happen to disagree with
* blocking is fundamentally hierarchical:
** one person owns a thread or post, and has the sole authority to block individuals from commenting on it
** a group of admins have the sole authority to ban individuals from posting in that group; there is also typically a single owner or founder who can demote or block admins
* blocking is a very crude level of control:
** typically, the only way to block someone from posting on a given thread is a person-to-person block -- preventing the two of you from seeing ''anything'' said by the other
** blocking someone from posting in a group prevents them from participating in ''any'' discussions in that group, including topics on which they are more reasonable
* once blocked, there is no reliable process by which a reformed maluser can regain posting permission

A better solution is needed.
==Notes==
* '''2020-10-24''' [https://twitter.com/unormal/status/1319891914066481153 unormal@twitter.com]: how one gaming community deals with right-wing malusers

Voting systems

2020-08-09T00:54:58Z

Woozle:

[[category:voting]]
''see also {{lc|voting}}''
==About==
At this point I'm advocating [[range voting]] for pretty much everything, because of all the systems in existence, it provides the minimum [[outcome error]] and is also easiest to evaluate in various contexts.

This page is for looking at suggestions that other systems work better in some circumstances.
==Ranked Voting==
===Argument===
Ranked voting is better than range voting because...
<blockquote>
[...] any system which doesn't give candidates an incentive to work for and with voters strikes me as a system that doesn't fulfill the needs of voters.

In ranking, candidates need to get support in order to win. In range, they just need to suck a tiny bit less than the others. They may well be able to do that without doing a single thing to actually earn support.

It's possible [that "sucking just a little bit less" would also get a win in ranking], but less likely. In ranking, you need some way to get ahead. Everybody's getting all the votes, and you want more appeal than the next one to rank higher. But in range, it's possible to have all candidates have negative scores or a tie among them all, which isn't possible in ranking.</blockquote>
===Response===
====1. There's always competition====
It seems to me that even if one set of politicians decided to be lazy about whatever work they should be doing towards earning votes, there are always other potential candidates who would be more than willing to put in the extra effort. The only way you get "laziness" in politics, as I understand it, is when the system makes a seat "safe" somehow -- either because their electoral district naturally leans heavily towards a particular party, or because a district has been Gerrymandered to heavily favor that party. Range voting certainly does not create those conditions.

Further, range voting ''increases'' the competition because it allows a larger slate of candidates to have a decent chance of winning -- see #3 about the two-party system.
====2. Actually, we don't want that====
Having to "work for votes" is actually a large part of what's ''wrong'' with US politics. Right now, elected officials have to spend a huge percentage of their time courting donations for the next election, instead of working on the actual issues. We should be able to choose our leaders by what policies they support rather than by how many photo-ops they've attended or babies they've kissed.

The same goes when the vote is on an issue rather than a leader: we should be able to choose the one that seems best, rather than the one which is able to put out the largest number of slickly-produced focus-group-tested ads.
====3. The Two-Party System====
With regard to leaders, specifically, a lot of this campaigning is ''only'' made necessary by the two-party system, which range voting weakens or eliminates. First you have to campaign in the primary, and then (if you win) again in the final election.

When people can only vote for one candidate out of a list, it's in the interest of the public to sort themselves into large groups who can agree at least somewhat on policy so that each group can back a particular candidate in the final election; otherwise, the odds are good of "splitting the vote" among several agreeable candidates.

If every voter can rate every candidate on the list according to how satisfied they'd be if that candidate were elected, however, then there's no need for the "elimination round" of primaries -- and no structural need for parties to organize a group decision.

More significantly, "strategic voting" is eliminated: you don't have to worry about voting for a candidate whose chances seem poor (because they haven't spent much money, are supporting an unpopular position you happen to like, etc.); you can fully "vote your conscience" ''without'' "wasting a vote", because you can still rate all the other candidates -- so your influence among those likely to win is undiminished.

(As long as money has a major influence on elections, parties will probably continue to exist in order to maximize the impact of that spending -- but even today, many large donors will give to ''both'' parties because that way they have clout with ''whoever'' gets elected. The more we weaken the party system, the larger the number of candidates that have a meaningful chance of winning -- and therefore the influence-buyers will have to split their donations among that larger number, thus making that kind of influence more expensive.)

Range voting

2020-08-08T18:31:18Z

Woozle: "outcome error" details now on a separate page

[[category:techniques]]
[[category:voting]]
[[Range voting]] (RV) is, in the most general sense, a voting system in which each voter assigns a score to each of the possible choices for a given decision. (Wikipedia [[wikipedia:range voting|defines it]] strictly in terms of voting for candidates in a formal election, but it need not be restricted to this usage.) The score must be within a predetermined range, so that everyone knows what the numbers mean (does "10" mean "acceptable" or "I love this"?).

My preferred system goes from -10 to +10, so that it's more obvious which numbers represent a vote ''against'' rather than ''for''. Ten possibilities on either side of zero (neutral = don't-care ≈ abstain) also make for a relatively intuitive, simple, clickable user interface (no typing needed).
==Advantages==
The key advantage to range voting, as I understand it, is that it more or less completely does away with the aggregation anomalies created by coarser voting systems, including:
* the [[issuepedia:Two-party system|two party "system"]]
** minority rule (the winner may only have the support of a small percentage)
** "strategic voting" (voting for "the lesser of two evils")
** "vote splitting" (a majority position losing its representation by being split across two or more candidates)
** the "spoiler" effect (3rd-party voters are punished)
* {{l/ip|gerrymandering}} is rendered ineffective

It also results in the minimum net [[outcome error]] of all the voting systems I'm aware of
==Disadvantages==
The main disadvantage of RV is that it involves the aggregation of much more data than traditional voting techniques. (This is an unavoidable consequence of what is also its greatest basic strength: the fact that it gives the system much more information about what each voter wants, making it possible to come much closer to satisfying everyone.) In the internet era, however, the difficulty posed by this added complexity vanishes to insignificance.

The other disadvantage to RV is that people aren't used to it, and tend to object to it on the basis of misunderstandings or false assumptions.
==Objections==
[http://rangevoting.org/RVcrit.html CRV] has a good collection of objections, and answers for each. (I'll add more information here about any objections that seem to be especially popular.)
==Refinements==
* '''Hidden "advanced" mode''': Studies apparently show that exactly ten levels of approval work best for most people, but many people (such as myself) might want a bit more granularity. It would be simple enough to display ten levels by default, but to allow individual users to enable more choices (either via a control on the page or via a global "preferences" setting).
** (This concept could be applied to many other UI elements as well; there is no need for one-size-fits-all UI design.)
* '''Descriptive labels''': Different levels of approval could be labeled descriptively to give more of a sense of meaning, e.g.:
** -10: I cannot believe any sane person would choose this.
** -1: I don't think this would be a good choice.
** +5: I'm pretty certain this would work quite well.
** +10: This would be absolutely fabulous.

The +/- symmetry seems rather essential to me (despite some [http://rangevoting.org/Why99.html puzzling objections]), but I'm open to a finer or coarser default granularity via the proposed "advanced" mode.
==Links==
===Reference===
* {{wikipedia}}
* {{issuepedia}}
===Projects===
* [http://rangevoting.org/ The Center for Range Voting] (CRV)
===Videos===
* [http://fixyt.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained] (6:31) -- highly recommended
** (Interestingly, my reshare of this video is currently the top "comment" on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo its YouTube page].)

Outcome error

2020-08-08T18:30:19Z

Woozle:

[[Outcome error]] is the difference between what voters want and what they actually get. It can apply to individuals (what one person wanted vs. what they got) as well as being summed all participants in an election. The latter gives an idea of how well the voting system serves as a way of determining how well any given voting system serves the votership in any given circumstance.

Note that "want" is much more than just "I want Option X to win". Most voters have some idea of not only what outcome they'd most prefer, but also a range of other outcomes which would be acceptable, others which would be tolerable, and still others which would be bad or even absolutely unacceptable. In the event that Option X does win the election, the degree of ''individual'' [[outcome error]] goes up as we move from "preferred" to "absolutely unacceptable".

Range voting ''alone'' allows an unambiguous expression of this complexity for each of the possible options, allowing compromise so that (e.g.) an option that most people agree is ''tolerable'' could prevail, despite violent disagreement about which option would be ''best''.
==Terminology==
* individual outcome error (for one voter): "individual outcome error", or '''Ei'''
* collective outcome error across all voters: "summed outcome error", or '''Eall'''
==Summing==
There are at least a couple of different reasonable ways of calculating Eall. My default is to use [[wikipedia:Root mean square|RMS]]:
:<code>SUM((Ei^2)^0.5)</code> (summed across all votes for a given issue)

In any system where voters can express a position on more than one candidate (this applies both to range voting ''and'' ranked voting), we also need to sum up those positions to determine how much they disagree with the winning choice. This calculation depends on the ''meaning'' of those expressions, or (more precisely) what meaning the voter is trying to express ''through'' them.
===Range Voting===
In the case of range voting with a range from -X to +X, the meaning is pretty obvious: minus X indicates the strongest disapproval, and plus X represents the strongest approval.

Another question which arises is whether we count the voter's opinions on choices which ''didn't'' win.

Example, where we use a range from -10 to +10:
{| border=1
|-
! option → || A || B || C
|-
| '''voter 1''' ratings: || align=right | +10 || align=right | 0 || align=right | -10
|-
| '''voter 2''' ratings: || align=right | +5 || align=right | +10 || align=right | -5
|}
Let's play out the scenario where A wins:
* '''Voter 1''' would seem to be completely satisfied. They're not going to object that B didn't win, because they were lukewarm about it, and they're delighted that C didn't win either. It seems fair to say that they're 100% satisfied with this outcome.
* '''Voter 2''', however, is less sanguine. One of the options they liked (A) did win, and the one option they disliked (C) did not -- but there was another option they liked better (B) which didn't win. It seems fair to say that they have a positive feeling about the outcome, but less than 100%.

For the sake of working out an algorithm to calculate this:
* Let's call the voter's ranking for each option the "option's voter-rating", '''Ov'''.
* Let's call the value assigned to each option to express how it did in the election the "option's outcome-value" ('''Oo''')

An algorithm which seems to result in this unitary evaluation of each voter's satisfaction would be:
* Each losing option gets an outcome value ('''Oo''') of '''-10'''.
* Any winning option<ref name=winners /> gets a Oo of '''+10'''.
* We then take the difference between '''Oo''' (the outcome for each option) and '''Ov''' (how the voter felt about that option), and sum them across all options - and since we want the ''magnitude'' of the disagreements to sum, we'll use RMS again:
*: <code>SQRT(SUM((Ov)2-(Oo)2)</code> (summed across all votes for a given issue) - dissatisfaction rating (0 = not at all dissatisfied; positive values = more dissatisfied)

Let's add some more voters to illustrate additional forms of dissatisfaction:
* voter 3: really disliked the option which won (A), but wasn't super-crazy about the others
* voter 4: was dead-set on B, hated A, neutral on C
* voter 5: was dead-set on B, hated both A and C
Adding those voters and this algorithm's results to the table, we get:
{| border=1
|-
! option → || A || B || C || SUM(δ^2) || SQRT()
|-
| '''Oo''' (outcome value): || align=right | +10 || align=right | -10 || align=right | -10
|-
| align=right | '''voter 1''' Ov: || align=right | +10 || align=right | 0 || align=right | -10
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | 0 || align=right | -10 || align=right | 0 || (0+100+0)=100 || 10
|-
| align=right | '''voter 2''' Ov: || align=right | +5 || align=right | +10 || align=right | -5
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | +5 || align=right | -20 || align=right | -5 || (25+400+25)=450 || 21.2
|-
| align=right | '''voter 3''' Ov: || align=right | -10 || align=right | 0 || align=right | 0
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | +20 || align=right | -10 || align=right | -10 || (400+100+100)=600 || 24.5
|-
| align=right | '''voter 4''' Ov: || align=right | -10 || align=right | +10 || align=right | 0
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | +20 || align=right | -20 || align=right | -10 || (400+400+100)=900 || 30
|-
| align=right | '''voter 5''' Ov: || align=right | -10 || align=right | +10 || align=right | -10
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | +20 || align=right | -20 || align=right | 0 || (400+400+0)=800 || 28.3
|}
This does correctly reflect the fact that voter 1 is happier with the outcome than voter 2, that voter 3 is less happy than voter 2, that voter 4 is ''even'' less happy, and that voter 5 is ''slightly'' happier than voter 4 because they were ''really worried'' about an option which didn't win (whereas 4 didn't care much) but still less content than voter 3 (who was neutral about option C, which lost, while 5 hated C and is a bit extra-glad it didn't win).

A ''possible'' objection to this algorithm lies in the fact that {disapproval of an option which won} is weighted the same as {approval of an option which lost}. Further analysis needed.
==Footnote==
<references>
<ref name=winners>Some elections can have multiple winners; this particular example only allows one.</ref>
</references>

Outcome error

2020-08-08T01:08:23Z

Woozle:

[[Outcome error]] is the difference between what voters want and what they actually get. It can apply to individuals (what one person wanted vs. what they got) as well as being summed all participants in an election. The latter gives an idea of how well the voting system serves as a way of determining how well any given voting system serves the votership in any given circumstance.

Note that "want" is much more than just "I want Option X to win". Most voters have some idea of not only what outcome they'd most prefer, but also a range of other outcomes which would be acceptable, others which would be tolerable, and still others which would be bad or even absolutely unacceptable. In the event that Option X does win the election, the degree of ''individual'' [[outcome error]] goes up as we move from "preferred" to "absolutely unacceptable".

Range voting ''alone'' allows an unambiguous expression of this complexity for each of the possible options, allowing compromise so that (e.g.) an option that most people agree is ''tolerable'' could prevail, despite violent disagreement about which option would be ''best''.
==Terminology==
* individual outcome error (for one voter): "individual outcome error", or '''Ei'''
* collective outcome error across all voters: "summed outcome error", or '''Eall'''
==Summing==
There are at least a couple of different reasonable ways of calculating Eall. My default is to use [[wikipedia:Root mean square|RMS]]:
:<code>SUM((Ei^2)^0.5)</code> (summed across all votes for a given issue)

In any system where voters can express a position on more than one candidate (this applies both to range voting ''and'' ranked voting), we also need to sum up those positions to determine how much they disagree with the winning choice. This calculation depends on the ''meaning'' of those expressions, or (more precisely) what meaning the voter is trying to express ''through'' them.
===Range Voting===
In the case of range voting with a range from -X to +X, the meaning is pretty obvious: minus X indicates the strongest disapproval, and plus X represents the strongest approval.

Another question which arises is whether we count the voter's opinions on choices which ''didn't'' win.

Example, where we use a range from -10 to +10:
{| border=1
|-
! option → || A || B || C
|-
| '''voter 1''' ratings: || align=right | +10 || align=right | 0 || align=right | -10
|-
| '''voter 2''' ratings: || align=right | +5 || align=right | +10 || align=right | -5
|}
Let's play out the scenario where A wins:
* '''Voter 1''' would seem to be completely satisfied. They're not going to object that B didn't win, because they were lukewarm about it, and they're delighted that C didn't win either. It seems fair to say that they're 100% satisfied with this outcome.
* '''Voter 2''', however, is less sanguine. One of the options they liked (A) did win, and the one option they disliked (C) did not -- but there was another option they liked better (B) which didn't win. It seems fair to say that they have a positive feeling about the outcome, but less than 100%.

For the sake of working out an algorithm to calculate this:
* Let's call the voter's ranking for each option the "option's voter-rating", '''Ov'''.
* Let's call the value assigned to each option to express how it did in the election the "option's outcome-value" ('''Oo''')

An algorithm which seems to result in this unitary evaluation of each voter's satisfaction would be:
* Each losing option gets an outcome value ('''Oo''') of '''-10'''.
* Any winning option<ref name=winners /> gets a Oo of '''+10'''.
* We then take the difference between '''Oo''' (the outcome for each option) and '''Ov''' (how the voter felt about that option), and sum them across all options - and since we want the ''magnitude'' of the disagreements to sum, we'll use RMS again:
*: <code>SQRT(SUM((Ov)2-(Oo)2)</code> (summed across all votes for a given issue) - dissatisfaction rating (0 = not at all dissatisfied; positive values = more dissatisfied)

Let's add some more voters to illustrate additional forms of dissatisfaction:
* voter 3: really disliked the option which won (A), but wasn't super-crazy about the others
* voter 4: was dead-set on B, hated A, neutral on C
* voter 5: was dead-set on B, hated both A and C
Adding those voters and this algorithm's results to the table, we get:
{| border=1
|-
! option → || A || B || C || SUM(δ^2) || SQRT()
|-
| '''Oo''' (outcome value): || align=right | +10 || align=right | -10 || align=right | -10
|-
| align=right | '''voter 1''' Ov: || align=right | +10 || align=right | 0 || align=right | -10
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | 0 || align=right | -10 || align=right | 0 || (0+100+0)=100 || 10
|-
| align=right | '''voter 2''' Ov: || align=right | +5 || align=right | +10 || align=right | -5
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | +5 || align=right | -20 || align=right | -5 || (25+400+25)=450 || 21.2
|-
| align=right | '''voter 3''' Ov: || align=right | -10 || align=right | 0 || align=right | 0
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | +20 || align=right | -10 || align=right | -10 || (400+100+100)=600 || 24.5
|-
| align=right | '''voter 4''' Ov: || align=right | -10 || align=right | +10 || align=right | 0
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | +20 || align=right | -20 || align=right | -10 || (400+400+100)=900 || 30
|-
| align=right | '''voter 5''' Ov: || align=right | -10 || align=right | +10 || align=right | -10
|-
| align=right | Oo-Ov: || align=right | +20 || align=right | -20 || align=right | 0 || (400+400+0)=800 || 28.3
|}
This does correctly reflect the fact that voter 1 is happier with the outcome than voter 2, that voter 3 is less happy than voter 2, that voter 4 is ''even'' less happy, and that voter 5 is ''slightly'' happier than voter 4 because they were ''really worried'' about an option which didn't win (whereas 4 didn't care much) but still less content than voter 3 (narrative unclear on this one; will have to think about it).

NTS: should probably check these figures over again.
==Footnote==
<references>
<ref name=winners>Some elections can have multiple winners; this particular example only allows one.</ref>
</references>

Voting systems

2020-08-08T00:02:18Z

Woozle: Created page with "category:voting ''see also {{lc|voting}}'' ==About== At this point I'm advocating range voting for pretty much everything, because of all the systems in existence, it..."

Outcome error

2020-08-07T21:16:30Z

Woozle: not done

Outcome error

2020-08-07T20:06:22Z

Woozle: Created page with "Outcome error is the difference between what voters want and what they actually get. It can apply to individuals (what one person wanted vs. what they got) as well as bein..."

Category:Voting

2020-08-07T19:56:26Z

Woozle: Created page with "pages about voting systems and methodologies"

pages about voting systems and methodologies

Template:Lc

2020-08-07T19:55:07Z

Woozle: Created page with "{{{1}}}"

[[:category:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]

Voter enclave

2020-08-07T19:54:19Z

Woozle:

[[category:voting]]
A [[voter enclave]] (VE) is a way of providing the following features within a voting system:
* external verification ("were all these votes cast by real voters?")
* internal verification ("was my vote correctly added to the total?")
* preservation of public vote anonymity (the public at large cannot determine how any individual voted)

New problems will likely crop up within this system, but it provides a new structure which hopefully will suggest solutions.

Tentatively, this system eliminates all possible "hacks" to electronic voting systems, since it's verifiable all the way down.
==The Rules==
* '''self-grouping''': Any group of people of any size may create a VE, and register it with the government.
* '''single-vote''': Every voter joins exactly one VE, and registers their membership with the government.
* '''public record''': The list of VEs and the number of members in each are posted publicly.
* In an election:
** Voters may see the votes of all others in the VE, in order to verify that the VE is reporting the correct totals.
** The lists of VE totals (but not the individual votes) are posted publicly, so the public can verify that the final vote represents an accurate summing of the individual VE totals.

==How It Works==
This makes it possible for individual voters to verify that their votes were correctly added to the VE's totals, because they will have access to the individual votes of everyone else in the VE.

From there, it is possible to reconstruct the final total by

'''Self-grouping''' is important because:
* It means that voters are free to only reveal their votes to others they trust, thus preventing individual targeting by hostiles.
* It minimizes corruption within the VEs, as voters can freely change to (or form) another VE if they don't like the way their current VE is doing things.
==Addressed Problems===
* '''Q:''' Won't some VEs cheat and report higher totals than could be accounted for by their membership?
** '''A:''' The number of members in each VE will be a matter of public record.
==Possible Problems==
* Since VEs will tend to consist of like-minded people, mostly in small groups, hostiles might target everyone in the VEs they don't like.
** '''Solution''': Keep member-lists private -- only the government has them. Hostiles will not know any individuals to target.
** '''solution''': Allow VEs to partner with others and aggregate their votes. The same mechanisms will work at any number of levels. This limits the reach of information about where hostile-disapproved votes are coming from.

Range voting

2020-08-07T19:53:58Z

Woozle:

[[category:techniques]]
[[category:voting]]
[[Range voting]] (RV) is, in the most general sense, a voting system in which each voter assigns a score to each of the possible choices for a given decision. (Wikipedia [[wikipedia:range voting|defines it]] strictly in terms of voting for candidates in a formal election, but it need not be restricted to this usage.) The score must be within a predetermined range, so that everyone knows what the numbers mean (does "10" mean "acceptable" or "I love this"?).

My preferred system goes from -10 to +10, so that it's more obvious which numbers represent a vote ''against'' rather than ''for''. Ten possibilities on either side of zero (neutral = don't-care ≈ abstain) also make for a relatively intuitive, simple, clickable user interface (no typing needed).
==Advantages==
The key advantage to range voting, as I understand it, is that it more or less completely does away with the aggregation anomalies created by coarser voting systems, including:
* the [[issuepedia:Two-party system|two party "system"]]
** minority rule (the winner may only have the support of a small percentage)
** "strategic voting" (voting for "the lesser of two evils")
** "vote splitting" (a majority position losing its representation by being split across two or more candidates)
** the "spoiler" effect (3rd-party voters are punished)
* {{l/ip|gerrymandering}} is rendered ineffective

It also results in the minimum net error of all the voting systems I'm aware of, where net error would be calculated as something like [[wikipedia:Root mean square|RMS]]:
:<code>SUM(([voter preference]-[final vote])^2)^0.5)</code> (summed across all votes for a given issue)

==Disadvantages==
The main disadvantage of RV is that it involves the aggregation of much more data than traditional voting techniques. (This is an unavoidable consequence of what is also its greatest basic strength: the fact that it gives the system much more information about what each voter wants, making it possible to come much closer to satisfying everyone.) In the internet era, however, the difficulty posed by this added complexity vanishes to insignificance.

The other disadvantage to RV is that people aren't used to it, and tend to object to it on the basis of misunderstandings or false assumptions.
==Objections==
[http://rangevoting.org/RVcrit.html CRV] has a good collection of objections, and answers for each. (I'll add more information here about any objections that seem to be especially popular.)
==Refinements==
* '''Hidden "advanced" mode''': Studies apparently show that exactly ten levels of approval work best for most people, but many people (such as myself) might want a bit more granularity. It would be simple enough to display ten levels by default, but to allow individual users to enable more choices (either via a control on the page or via a global "preferences" setting).
** (This concept could be applied to many other UI elements as well; there is no need for one-size-fits-all UI design.)
* '''Descriptive labels''': Different levels of approval could be labeled descriptively to give more of a sense of meaning, e.g.:
** -10: I cannot believe any sane person would choose this.
** -1: I don't think this would be a good choice.
** +5: I'm pretty certain this would work quite well.
** +10: This would be absolutely fabulous.

The +/- symmetry seems rather essential to me (despite some [http://rangevoting.org/Why99.html puzzling objections]), but I'm open to a finer or coarser default granularity via the proposed "advanced" mode.
==Links==
===Reference===
* {{wikipedia}}
* {{issuepedia}}
===Projects===
* [http://rangevoting.org/ The Center for Range Voting] (CRV)
===Videos===
* [http://fixyt.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained] (6:31) -- highly recommended
** (Interestingly, my reshare of this video is currently the top "comment" on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo its YouTube page].)

Truth

2020-01-04T22:44:00Z

Woozle:

The word [[truth]] has [[issuepedia:truth|multiple meanings]]. In the context of InstaGov, we will primarily be using it in the sense of '''[[issuepedia:truth/evidenced|evidenced]]''' truth.

The [[debate mapper]] is intended as a tool to help with refining the [[issuepedia:truth/evidenced|evidenced]] (most-likely) truth from the raw ore of random information and disinformation.

Debate Mapper

2019-12-28T16:53:52Z

Woozle: Redirected page to Debate mapper

#redirect [[debate mapper]]

Debate mapper/FRO

2019-12-20T23:05:47Z

Woozle:

=Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper=
* '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs/ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: People don't ''think'' ideology, they ''feel'' it.)
*: '''Responses''':
*:* In the overwhelming majority of debates in which I have been involved, the basic rules of determining truth were not the issue; opposing parties seemed to feel the need to at least maintain a ''pretense'' of reasoning from evidence.
*:** As long as both parties are playing by the basic rules of reasoning from evidence, they must eventually arrive at non-conflicting answers.
*:** If one party refuses to produce any {{l/ip|evidence}} to defend their position, or summarily dismisses the evidence produced against it, then they are basically admitting that they are objectively wrong, and their position can be regarded as invalid.
*:* Even if only a few people are willing to insist that their beliefs must be reasonable (i.e. must fit the best available evidence), the Mapper is still a vital tool for:
*:** weeding out disinformation
*:** overcoming one's own biases
*:** making it clear whether an opposing viewpoint has merit
*:** achieving consensus, especially on complex issues, more quickly and definitively
*:* This is like a caveperson objecting to the idea of using fire because most things aren't currently on fire, so most people don't have access to fire and therefore can't be expected to use it. Debate-mapping is a tool which will benefit those who do use it.
*:* Much of what people wrongly believe is because their emotional responses have been deliberately shaped by a few powerful agencies who often escape accountability because the beliefs they promote are difficult to disprove. Debate-mapping will help settle those ambiguities and allow more unified pushback against those agencies.
* '''Objection''': Reasoning from evidence is just one way of knowing; there are other ways, and which one is best is [[issuepedia:that's your opinion|just a matter of opinion]].
*: '''Response''': When the objective evidence shows that "other methods of knowing" are much more likely arrive at results that do not work, are clearly wrong, or cause more harm than good, the idea that they are somehow equally valid is questionable at best.

Debate mapper/FRO

2019-12-20T22:20:26Z

Woozle:

=Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper=
* '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: People don't ''think'' ideology, they ''feel'' it.)
*: '''Responses''':
*:* In the overwhelming majority of debates in which I have been involved, the basic rules of determining truth were not the issue; opposing parties seemed to feel the need to at least maintain a ''pretense'' of reasoning from evidence.
*:** As long as both parties are playing by the basic rules of reasoning from evidence, they must eventually arrive at non-conflicting answers.
*:** If one party refuses to produce any {{l/ip|evidence}} to defend their position, or summarily dismisses the evidence produced against it, then they are basically admitting that they are objectively wrong, and their position can be regarded as invalid.
*:* Even if only a few people are willing to insist that their beliefs must be reasonable (i.e. must fit the best available evidence), the Mapper is still a vital tool for:
*:** weeding out disinformation
*:** overcoming one's own biases
*:** making it clear whether an opposing viewpoint has merit
*:** achieving consensus, especially on complex issues, more quickly and definitively
*:* This is like a caveperson objecting to the idea of using fire because most things aren't currently on fire, so most people don't have access to fire and therefore can't be expected to use it. Debate-mapping is a tool which will benefit those who do use it.
*:* Much of what people wrongly believe is because their emotional responses have been deliberately shaped by a few powerful agencies who often escape accountability because the beliefs they promote are difficult to disprove. Debate-mapping will help settle those ambiguities and allow more unified pushback against those agencies.
* '''Objection''': Reasoning from evidence is just one way of knowing; there are other ways, and which one is best is [[issuepedia:that's your opinion|just a matter of opinion]].
*: '''Response''': When the objective evidence shows that "other methods of knowing" are much more likely arrive at results that do not work, are clearly wrong, or cause more harm than good, the idea that they are somehow equally valid is questionable at best.

Truth

2019-12-18T20:45:06Z

Woozle:

The word [[truth]] has at least the following widely-recognized meanings:
# '''objective truth''': a thing we will never know precisely but can only approach asymptotically as we better understand the mechanisms by which it operates
# '''most-likely truth''': that which is best supported by the currently-available evidence
# '''believed truth''': that for which there is a consensus belief within some group
# '''received truth''': that which is held to be true because it has been received from an appropriate {{l/ip|authority}}
==Our Usage==
By default, InstaGov uses "truth" in first and second senses – either objective truth or our current best approximation to it.

The [[debate mapper]] is intended as a tool to help with refining the '''most-likely truth''' from the raw ore of random information and disinformation.
==Reference==
* {{issuepedia}}

Debate mapper

2019-12-18T20:44:39Z

Woozle:

[[category:modules]]
==About==
The [[debate mapper]], aka '''[[truth]] mapper''', is software designed to provide a user-friendly graphical/web interface for [[structured debate]].

Structured debate provides a system for keeping track of the status of every point and counterpoint that has been raised in a debate.

The Debate Mapper module allows multiple participants to make contributions simultaneously (which would not be possible in a spoken debate), permitting much more thorough fact-checking than in other forms of debate and ensuring that all positions have an opportunity to assert their objections to any given conclusion.

Ideally, the end result would be that everyone could agree on the correct (best, most likely, most reasonable) answer to any given question. In practice, of course, there will be a few people who refuse to recognize illogic (or insist that correct logic must be wrong, probably because it leads to answers they don't like); there are multiple ways of dealing with this conflict.

The fact that the debate is reduced to a cascading set of simple premises and conclusions should help minimize ''unintentional'' illogic.

The debate mapper is just part of a toolkit which is intended to be assembled and interconnected into a sort of [[expository ecosystem]] which will generally help promote [[rational decisionmaking]]:
* Flat-out erroneous logic, as well as deliberately misleading – i.e. {{l/ip|bad faith}} – arguments, will need to be handled with a [[Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement|reputation system]]. For use within a trusted group, however, the debate mapper alone should be a valuable tool for getting to the truth of complicated matters.
* Actual decisionmaking based on the outcomes of structured debates is intended to be made via the [[liquid agenda]] module.
===Pages===
* [[/FRO]]
* [[/goals]]
===Premises===
The design of the debate/truth mapper is based on the following premises about [[truth]]:
# There exist methods of reasoning which are more likely than others to produce results in accordance with reality, despite observer bias.
# In general, scientific methodologies have been shown to be better at this than any others currently at our disposal.
# Training oneself to take the determinations of scientific methodologies seriously, rather than allowing any of many possible biases to override them when forming our beliefs, is a matter of individual training.
# The same is true whether we're talking about subject traditionally considered "scientific" (physics, chemistry, maths) or those of a more humanistic nature (psychology, sociology, politics).

===Process===
* Anyone may start a debate at any time; debate starts with an assertion of fact (the "prime assertion"), preferably defended by supporting arguments.
* Anyone may add [[issuepedia:Argument/counter|counterarguments]] or additional supporting arguments to this assertion at any time.
* Each supporting or countering argument is itself an assertion, and may be further supported or countered at any time.
* Debate continues indefinitely.
** If new information is discovered which affects the debate, this information can be added immediately, with the potential to immediately change the debate's outcome (and hence the outcomes of any other debates which depend on this one, if others are linked to it; see [[#Ecosystem Features]]).
** The design currently presumes that the final state of the prime assertion will eventually settle down to being true or false for long periods of time, as nobody will have any additional points to add; in practicality, decisions based on the debate's outcome will need to be made at specific times, and debates should be held in such a way that the final state will be likely to have settled down by the time any decision must be made.
** There should probably also be a minimum amount of time between the last state-change and the actual decision, so as to negate the effects of last-minute [[/counterpoint spam]]ming.

Individual debate venues may wish to make changes or additions to the procedural rules in order to accommodate their specific needs and circumstances.

==Links==
* [[htyp:InstaGov/Debate_Mapper|technical documentation]]
* <s>[http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/debate-mapper project manager]</s> need a Ruby on Rails expert to fix that...
* <s>The latest demo version is on ICMS: {{l/icms|Exhibits/debate}}</s> offline as of late 2016
* Issuepedia has some related pages:
** Example debates: {{l/ip|Category:Debates}}
** Earlier explanations are at {{l/ip|structured debate}} and {{l/ip|Issuepedia:Structured Debate}}
** {{l/ip|Issuepedia:Dispute Resolution Technology}} includes links to similar projects.

==History==
* The debate mapper was inspired in part by the (fictional) [[decision duel]] concept.
==Notes==
To be checked (from [http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/06/against-interminable-arguments/#comment-332813 here]):
* [http://idebate.org/debatabase Debatabase] - [http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/politics/house-believes-all-nations-have-right-nuclear-weapons sample debate]
* [http://www.procon.org ProCon] - [http://gun-control.procon.org sample debate]
* [http://www.debate.org Debate.org] - [http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-creationism-be-taught-in-public-schools-alongside-evolution sample debate]

Truth

2019-12-18T20:38:33Z

Woozle: Created page with "The word truth has at least the following widely-recognized meanings: # '''objective truth''': a thing we will never know precisely but can only approach asymptotically as..."

Debate mapper/FRO

2019-12-18T20:33:08Z

Woozle:

=Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper=
* '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: People don't ''think'' ideology, they ''feel'' it.)
*: '''Responses''':
*:* In the overwhelming majority of debates in which I have been involved, the basic rules of determining truth were not the issue; opposing parties seemed to feel the need to at least maintain a ''pretense'' of reasoning from evidence.
*:** As long as both parties are playing by the basic rules of reasoning from evidence, they must eventually arrive at non-conflicting answers.
*:** If one party refuses to produce any {{l/ip|evidence}} to defend their position, or summarily dismisses the evidence produced against it, then they are basically admitting that they are objectively wrong, and their position can be regarded as invalid.
*:* Even if only a few people are willing to insist that their beliefs must be reasonable (i.e. must fit the best available evidence), the Mapper is still a vital tool for:
*:** weeding out disinformation
*:** overcoming one's own biases
*:** making it clear whether an opposing viewpoint has merit
*:** achieving consensus, especially on complex issues, more quickly and definitively
* '''Objection''': Reasoning from evidence is just one way of knowing; there are other ways, and which one is best is [[issuepedia:that's your opinion|just a matter of opinion]].
*: '''Response''': When the objective evidence shows that "other methods of knowing" are much more likely arrive at results that do not work, are clearly wrong, or cause more harm than good, the idea that they are somehow equally valid is questionable at best.

Debate mapper/FRO

2019-12-18T20:21:54Z

Woozle: Created page with "=Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper= * '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: P..."

=Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper=
* '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: People don't ''think'' ideology, they ''feel'' it.)
*: '''Response''': Even if only a few people are willing to insist that their beliefs must be reasonable (i.e. must fit the best available evidence), the Mapper is still a vital tool for:
*:* weeding out disinformation
*:* overcoming one's own biases
*:* making it clear whether an opposing viewpoint has merit
*:* achieving consensus, especially on complex issues, more quickly and definitively

Voter enclave

2019-12-13T14:36:38Z

Woozle: /* The Rules */

A [[voter enclave]] (VE) is a way of providing the following features within a voting system:
* external verification ("were all these votes cast by real voters?")
* internal verification ("was my vote correctly added to the total?")
* preservation of public vote anonymity (the public at large cannot determine how any individual voted)

New problems will likely crop up within this system, but it provides a new structure which hopefully will suggest solutions.

Tentatively, this system eliminates all possible "hacks" to electronic voting systems, since it's verifiable all the way down.
==The Rules==
* '''self-grouping''': Any group of people of any size may create a VE, and register it with the government.
* '''single-vote''': Every voter joins exactly one VE, and registers their membership with the government.
* '''public record''': The list of VEs and the number of members in each are posted publicly.
* In an election:
** Voters may see the votes of all others in the VE, in order to verify that the VE is reporting the correct totals.
** The lists of VE totals (but not the individual votes) are posted publicly, so the public can verify that the final vote represents an accurate summing of the individual VE totals.

==How It Works==
This makes it possible for individual voters to verify that their votes were correctly added to the VE's totals, because they will have access to the individual votes of everyone else in the VE.

From there, it is possible to reconstruct the final total by

'''Self-grouping''' is important because:
* It means that voters are free to only reveal their votes to others they trust, thus preventing individual targeting by hostiles.
* It minimizes corruption within the VEs, as voters can freely change to (or form) another VE if they don't like the way their current VE is doing things.
==Addressed Problems===
* '''Q:''' Won't some VEs cheat and report higher totals than could be accounted for by their membership?
** '''A:''' The number of members in each VE will be a matter of public record.
==Possible Problems==
* Since VEs will tend to consist of like-minded people, mostly in small groups, hostiles might target everyone in the VEs they don't like.
** '''Solution''': Keep member-lists private -- only the government has them. Hostiles will not know any individuals to target.
** '''solution''': Allow VEs to partner with others and aggregate their votes. The same mechanisms will work at any number of levels. This limits the reach of information about where hostile-disapproved votes are coming from.

Voter enclave

2019-12-13T14:04:51Z

Woozle:

A [[voter enclave]] (VE) is a way of providing the following features within a voting system:
* external verification ("were all these votes cast by real voters?")
* internal verification ("was my vote correctly added to the total?")
* preservation of public vote anonymity (the public at large cannot determine how any individual voted)

New problems will likely crop up within this system, but it provides a new structure which hopefully will suggest solutions.

Tentatively, this system eliminates all possible "hacks" to electronic voting systems, since it's verifiable all the way down.
==The Rules==
* '''self-grouping''': Any group of people of any size may create a VE, and register it with the government.
* '''single-vote''': Every voter joins exactly one VE, and registers their membership with the government.
* The list of VEs and the number of members in each are posted publicly.
* In an election:
** Voters may see the votes of all others in the VE, in order to verify that the VE is reporting the correct totals.
** The lists of VE totals (but not the individual votes) are posted publicly, so the public can verify that the final vote represents an accurate summing of the individual VE totals.
==How It Works==
This makes it possible for individual voters to verify that their votes were correctly added to the VE's totals, because they will have access to the individual votes of everyone else in the VE.

From there, it is possible to reconstruct the final total by

'''Self-grouping''' is important because:
* It means that voters are free to only reveal their votes to others they trust, thus preventing individual targeting by hostiles.
* It minimizes corruption within the VEs, as voters can freely change to (or form) another VE if they don't like the way their current VE is doing things.
==Addressed Problems===
* '''Q:''' Won't some VEs cheat and report higher totals than could be accounted for by their membership?
** '''A:''' The number of members in each VE will be a matter of public record.
==Possible Problems==
* Since VEs will tend to consist of like-minded people, mostly in small groups, hostiles might target everyone in the VEs they don't like.
** '''Solution''': Keep member-lists private -- only the government has them. Hostiles will not know any individuals to target.
** '''solution''': Allow VEs to partner with others and aggregate their votes. The same mechanisms will work at any number of levels. This limits the reach of information about where hostile-disapproved votes are coming from.

Main Page

2019-12-13T13:48:51Z

Woozle: /* Methodology */ VE

<big>'''InstaGov''' is a set of tools for instant self-governance via computer network. It is currently under development. It will be open-source and distributed/federated.</big>
__NOTOC__
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Goals==
* to invent functional and productive techniques of stateless (non-hierarchical) democratic self-governance
* to test and demonstrate these techniques starting on a small scale and working progressively upward
* to watch for exploit holes and "gaming" of these implementations, and work out ways to defeat these while they are still small
* to eventually make traditional government both unnecessary and irrelevant
In order to work towards these goals, it is necessary to better understand the [[mechanics of power]].

Restrictions on the sampling of public opinion, and its conversion into binding decisions, are a thing which may once have been necessary but which is now basically preventing democracy from taking place.
"restrictions on the sampling of public opinion" means:
# Elections only happen at set times, with long intervals in between
# What or who people can vote for is determined by those already in power
# The means of expression on votable issues is limited to favoring a single one, rather than expressing the degree to which one approves or disapproves of each(edited)
Proposed changes (there are some details to work out in each of these, but this is the basic idea):
: A. Any voter should be able to [[liquid agenda|propose agenda items at any time]]
: B. Any voter should be able to proxy their decisions in any given subject area to another voter of their choosing (subject-specific liquid democracy)
: C. (this part is not logically required, but I think it will be important) There should be a [[debate mapper|system of rational debate]] available, to which issues of sufficient importance should be subjected before they can be enacted.
| valign=top |
==External Pages==
* [[htyp:InstaGov|Design documents]]
* [[issuepedia:InstaGov|Philosophy]]
* [http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/igov Project manager / bug tracker]
* Google+: <echo raw now><a href="https://plus.google.com/111304337631160193138" rel="publisher" class="external text">page</a></echo> and [https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117423839385292311095 community]
|}
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Modules==
* [[liquid agenda]]
* [[debate mapper]]
* [[P2P Accountability Enforcement]]
* [[categorization]]
* [[proxy voting]]
** [[weighted proxy voting|weighted]]
| valign=top |

==Methodology==
* [[cooperatives]]
* [[governance methods]]: alternatives
* [[inquest]]
* [[liquid democracy]]
* [[liquid representation]]
* [[rational debate]]
* [[stages of change]]
* [[voter enclave]]s
| valign=top |

==Applications==
* [[democratic militia]]
* [[federated retail]]
* [[structured debate]]: a set of rules for [[rational debate]]
* solutions to the [[taxation problem]]:
** [[co-operatization of large companies]]
** [[opt-in market socialism]]
** [[socialized land ownership]]
| valign=top |
==Presentation==
* [[Collaborative network]]
* [[Circling the wagons]]
* [[International Citizens' Union]]
* [[Premises]]
* [[Structural overview]]
* [[Social business coalition]]
* [[Solutions]]
* [[US House of Commons]]
|}

==Related Projects==
* [https://citizenos.com/product/ CitizenOS]: proprietary decisionmaking platform
* [http://democracyos.org/ DemocracyOS]: liquid democracy implementation ([https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/06/12/case-against-bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-and-philanthropy-we-know-it via] [https://social.coop/users/ntnsndr/updates/4088 via author on Mastodon]): code is on GitHub
* Liquid Agenda and the Debate Mapper could probably benefit from having a UI like [https://github.com/Agora-Project/agora-meteor this], at least as an option. ([https://witches.town/@Angle author on Mastodon])
* '''[http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-humanity-online-project The Humanity Online Project]'''
* '''[https://love.loomio.org/real-democracy-needs-to-include-everyone Loomio]'''
** [https://loomio.coop/ software co-op]
* '''[[Liquid Feedback]]''' (a project of the Pirate Party)
* '''Make Your Laws''': [http://makeyourlaws.org main site] .. [http://wiki.makeyourlaws.org wiki] .. [https://plus.google.com/100183759660923071401/about Google+]
===proprietary / centralized===
* [http://www.deliberator.com/ Deliberator]: very similar to [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|Liquid Agenda]], but more heavily moderated and produced
* [https://blog.kialo.com/kialo-hello-world-d12ac78a320a Kialo]: similar to [[debate mapper]]
* [https://www.loomio.org/ Loomio]: "a user-friendly tool for group decision-making. Creating a world where it’s easy for anyone to participate in decisions that affect them." Subscription is pay-what-you-like; looks like interaction may be limited to "groups".
* [http://participedia.net/en Participedia] "open global knowledge community for researchers and practitioners in the field of democratic innovation and public engagement."
* [https://www.popvox.com/ PopVox] ([https://plus.google.com/115845584660035325057 Google+]): tell US Congress your opinion of bills
* [http://participedia.net/en/organizations/wikivote WikiVote] "Russian non-governmental organization which goal is to develop effective means of citizens’ participation in lawmaking and strategic planning"
* [http://thespark.org/ The Spark] "Users post and vote on PROBLEMS that we face as a global community. The most popular problems are voted to the top. Users then post and vote on SOLUTIONS so that the community can take ACTION." - sounds similar to [[liquid agenda]]
===techniques===
* [[wikipedia:Participatory politics]]: hierarchical representation carried out more thoroughly
** [http://web.archive.org/web/20140327013949/http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/5490 Professional Politicians Beware!] by Aaron Swartz ([http://50.81.205.197/photo_album/chron/2017/2017_02_21-book_review-the_boy_who_could_change_the_world-the_writings_of_aaron_swartz/politics.html via])
* [[wikipedia:Rational consensus]]: the method is not currently described in the article, but perhaps the article will be expanded soon. A user has described this system thusly: "ideas are based on known facts and good practices."

===discussion===
* [http://online-governance.quora.com/ Quora]
===plans===
* [https://sites.google.com/site/equalityincorporated/ Equality Incorporated] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/112240283217111217636/posts/DKe7hDFuq38 discussion])
* [http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan Wolf PAC]
* '''2013-07-31''' [http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-democrats-can-reclaim-north-carolina-government/Content?oid=3685711 How Democrats can reclaim North Carolina government]

Voter enclave

2019-12-13T13:47:19Z

Woozle: Created page with "A voter enclave (VE) is a way of providing the following features within a voting system: * external verification ("were all these votes cast by real voters?") * internal..."

A [[voter enclave]] (VE) is a way of providing the following features within a voting system:
* external verification ("were all these votes cast by real voters?")
* internal verification ("was my vote correctly added to the total?")
* preservation of public vote anonymity (the public at large cannot determine how any individual voted)

New problems will likely crop up within this system, but it provides a new structure which hopefully will suggest solutions.

==The Rules==
* '''self-grouping''': Any group of people of any size may create a VE, and register it with the government.
* '''single-vote''': Every voter joins exactly one VE, and registers their membership with the government.
* In an election:
** Voters may see the votes of all others in the VE, in order to verify that the VE is reporting the correct totals.
** The lists of VE totals (but not the individual votes) are available in a public database, so the public can verify that the final vote represents an accurate summing of the individual VE totals.
==How It Works==
'''Self-grouping''' is important because:
* It means that voters are free to only reveal their votes to others they trust, thus preventing individual targeting by hostiles.
* It minimizes corruption within the VEs, as voters can freely change to (or form) another VE if they don't like the way their current VE is doing things.
==Possible Problems==
* Since VEs will tend to consist of like-minded people, mostly in small groups, hostiles might target everyone in the VEs they don't like.
** '''Solution''': Keep member-lists private -- only the government has them. Hostiles will not know any individuals to target.
** '''solution''': Allow VEs to partner with others and aggregate their votes. The same mechanisms will work at any number of levels. This limits the reach of information about where hostile-disapproved votes are coming from.

Structured debate

2019-11-12T02:08:29Z

Woozle: reworked significantly; lots of stuff moved to debate mapper

[[category:tools]]
'''Author's note''': Despite multiple refinements, this is still rather wordy. Feel free to ask me questions on [https://toot.cat/@woozle Mastodon], and that will help me improve this explanation.
==About==
[[Structured debate]] is a way of cutting through disinformation and misunderstanding around complex topics. The key observation behind it is that policy decisions often depend on chains of logic that have gotten tangled or lost, and people forget or don't notice that key premises are basically wrong.

The mapper keeps track of the logical structure and shows what happens to the conclusion when a premise is found to be in error.
===Need===
A lot of political debate involves people reaching conclusions that involve fairly complex chains of reasoning -- they believe A because of B and C, and C because of D and E... and a lot of propaganda revolves around planting misinformation at those lower levels -- E is actually false, though everyone believes it, but the debate mostly revolves around A because nobody thinks to question C because that would require questioning D and E ...so people reach the wrong conclusion. Some of them may intuitively feel it's wrong, but they can't figure out why. There's a premise they're not checking.

So being "reasonable" ends up meaning you have to go along with a conclusion that's both factually and intuitively wrong.

Structured debate, and the [[debate mapper]] software, are designed to keep track of these complex relationships in order to reduce such errors from "inevitable" to "rare".
==Pages==
* [[/rules]]: structural design / "business" logic
==Refinements==
===Ecosystem Features===
* '''Linking''': In order to negate the need to replay existing debates within new contexts, any given point in a debate can be made dynamically dependent on the outcome of another debate.
* '''Categorization''': any given point within a debate may touch on one or more topics of general interest, and should be findable by anyone exploring that topic. ''A system for managing [[icms:Crowdsourced taxonomy|crowdsourced topic-tagging]] is under development.''
* '''Relationships''': It may be useful to be able to quantify the nature of a link's relationship with more granularity. One possible relationship:
** A is a generalization of B (= B is a special case of A)
** A may be inferred from B (= B is a premise upon which A is based)
** Types of support-point (this will definitely be needed):
*** A is ''necessary'' in order for B to be true
*** A is ''sufficient'' in order for B to be true
===Usability Features===
Additional features not essential to the basic concept but which makes it more usable:
* '''Text search''': search within a branch for specific text or patterns
* '''Notifications''': users should be able to set a preference indicating that they do (or do not) want to be notified (by any of various methods) when any of the following occurs for any given debate point:
** the point's status changes (from true to false or vice-versa)
** anyone edits the point's text
** the status of any subpoint changes
** anyone adds a new support or counter point

There may be other usability features we will want to include.

==Flaws==
* [[/counterpoint spam]]: Dishonest participants may repeatedly raise spurious objections solely for the purpose of keeping the correct conclusion in a state of presumed falsehood.
==Related==
* InstaGov's [[debate mapper]] module is a software implementation of the [[structured debate]] methodology.
* [[Structured debate]] is a methodology for conducting [[rational debate]].
* {{issuepedia}} has an article about SD. Some of the material there should probably be moved or copied over here.
==Notes==
* Note Sakari's comments <s>[https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/d9jVWJH5u1z here]</s>.

Debate mapper

2019-11-12T02:06:59Z

Woozle: much expanded with stuff from "structured debate" page

[[category:modules]]
==About==
The [[debate mapper]] is software designed to provide a user-friendly graphical/web interface for [[structured debate]].

Structured debate provides a system for keeping track of the status of every point and counterpoint that has been raised in a debate.

The Debate Mapper module allows multiple participants to make contributions simultaneously (which would not be possible in a spoken debate), permitting much more thorough fact-checking than in other forms of debate and ensuring that all positions have an opportunity to assert their objections to any given conclusion.

Ideally, the end result would be that everyone could agree on the correct (best, most likely, most reasonable) answer to any given question. In practice, of course, there will be a few people who refuse to recognize illogic (or insist that correct logic must be wrong, probably because it leads to answers they don't like); there are multiple ways of dealing with this conflict.

The fact that the debate is reduced to a cascading set of simple premises and conclusions should help minimize ''unintentional'' illogic.

The debate mapper is just part of a toolkit which is intended to be assembled and interconnected into a sort of [[expository ecosystem]] which will generally help promote [[rational decisionmaking]]:
* Flat-out erroneous logic, as well as deliberately misleading – i.e. {{l/ip|bad faith}} – arguments, will need to be handled with a [[Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement|reputation system]]. For use within a trusted group, however, the debate mapper alone should be a valuable tool for getting to the truth of complicated matters.
* Actual decisionmaking based on the outcomes of structured debates is intended to be made via the [[liquid agenda]] module.
===Pages===
* [[/goals]]
===Process===
* Anyone may start a debate at any time; debate starts with an assertion of fact (the "prime assertion"), preferably defended by supporting arguments.
* Anyone may add [[issuepedia:Argument/counter|counterarguments]] or additional supporting arguments to this assertion at any time.
* Each supporting or countering argument is itself an assertion, and may be further supported or countered at any time.
* Debate continues indefinitely.
** If new information is discovered which affects the debate, this information can be added immediately, with the potential to immediately change the debate's outcome (and hence the outcomes of any other debates which depend on this one, if others are linked to it; see [[#Ecosystem Features]]).
** The design currently presumes that the final state of the prime assertion will eventually settle down to being true or false for long periods of time, as nobody will have any additional points to add; in practicality, decisions based on the debate's outcome will need to be made at specific times, and debates should be held in such a way that the final state will be likely to have settled down by the time any decision must be made.
** There should probably also be a minimum amount of time between the last state-change and the actual decision, so as to negate the effects of last-minute [[/counterpoint spam]]ming.

Individual debate venues may wish to make changes or additions to the procedural rules in order to accommodate their specific needs and circumstances.

==Links==
* [[htyp:InstaGov/Debate_Mapper|technical documentation]]
* <s>[http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/debate-mapper project manager]</s> need a Ruby on Rails expert to fix that...
* <s>The latest demo version is on ICMS: {{l/icms|Exhibits/debate}}</s> offline as of late 2016
* Issuepedia has some related pages:
** Example debates: {{l/ip|Category:Debates}}
** Earlier explanations are at {{l/ip|structured debate}} and {{l/ip|Issuepedia:Structured Debate}}
** {{l/ip|Issuepedia:Dispute Resolution Technology}} includes links to similar projects.

==History==
* The debate mapper was inspired in part by the (fictional) [[decision duel]] concept.
==Notes==
To be checked (from [http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/06/against-interminable-arguments/#comment-332813 here]):
* [http://idebate.org/debatabase Debatabase] - [http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/politics/house-believes-all-nations-have-right-nuclear-weapons sample debate]
* [http://www.procon.org ProCon] - [http://gun-control.procon.org sample debate]
* [http://www.debate.org Debate.org] - [http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-creationism-be-taught-in-public-schools-alongside-evolution sample debate]

Structured debate/rules

2019-11-12T02:01:49Z

Woozle: plaintext intro

{| style="float: right; background: #cceeff; border: 1px solid black;" width=30%
|-
|<h2>Example</h2>
* '''claim''': Socrates is mortal
** '''support''': Socrates is mortal because he is a man.
*** '''requirement''': All men are mortal.
*** '''requirement''': Socrates is a man.
** '''support''': Socrates is dead, therefore he was mortal.
*** '''requirement''': Socrates is dead.
*** '''requirement''': Death is sufficient to demonstrate mortality.
** '''counter''': Socrates's works have endured for millennia, therefore he is immortal.
*** '''counter''': This is an argument that Socrates's ''works'' are immortal, not that he ''himself'' is immortal.

|}
__TOC__
==Debate Structure==
A [[structured debate]] starts with a conclusion, then presents supportive and contradictory evidence until it becomes clear whether the initial claim is adequately supported.

Other sets of rules are possible, but they must satisfy the non-negotiable [[/meta|meta-rules]] of reasoned debate.
==Reasoning==
In order to be [[rational]]ly defensible, any '''claim''' must be based on one or more '''premises''' which are combined into a conclusion via a '''logical operation''' (either "if all of X are true, then Y must be true" or "if any of X are true, then Y must be true"). An individual can either agree with the conclusion, or can dispute either the reasoning or the premises. Faulty reasoning is pretty obvious once it's pointed out; faulty evidence is generally based on further evidence-plus-reasoning which may itself be agreeable or not.

Any premise, when disputed, becomes another claim to be examined; this process can be repeated ("drilling down") until a set of claims is reached upon which no further debate seems possible ("drilling down to bedrock").

During the process of drilling down into any given claim, one eventually finds one of the following:
* '''bad reasoning''': the conclusion is not supported by the premises given
* '''lack of evidence''': the logic-tree is unsupported at some critical point, invalidating the ultimate claim
* '''fundamental agreement''': premises that everyone can agree on (plus valid reasoning all the way up) -- the conclusion is valid
* '''fundamental disagreement''': one or more items of logic remain in dispute, with no apparent way to drill down any further

While sentient beings will inevitably be illogical at times, mapping the debate should make it clear (or at least much clearer) to any reasonable observer – that is, any observer who is honestly ''attempting'' to seek the truth – where the illogic lies: which conclusions follows logically, and which do not.
==Terms==
''The following lists seem to have grown organically in separate locations, and the divisions between them may need to be rethought.''

===Debate terminology===
* An '''[[issuepedia:argument|argument]]''' is a set of assertions that logically draw a '''conclusion''' from a set of '''premises'''.
* Any argument is in a '''false state''' if either the logic or the premises are '''disputed'''.
* An argument that disputes the conclusion of another argument is also called a '''counterargument'''.
* Any counterargument is itself an argument, and may be further disputed.
* An argument is in a '''true state''' unless it is countered by one or more counterarguments which are themselves in a true state.

===Application terminology===
* Every argument starts with a '''keyclaim''' which asserts as fact the subject of the debate.
* Any '''claim''' may be answered by zero or more '''response claim'''s
* Each '''response claim''' must relate to the target claim in one of the following ways:
** '''Support''': an argument that the parent claim is true
** '''Counter''': an argument that the parent claim is false
** '''Informal''' (or "informational"): information which neither supports nor contradicts the parent claim but helps narrow or guide the discussion in some way
* Any '''response claim''' may also be viewed as a target claim, and the rules for target claims (given above) apply without modification
* Any claim may either be '''standalone''' or '''bundled''':
** A standalone claim remains active as long as it has ''at least one'' active supporting claim
** A bundled claim remains active only as long as ''all'' of its supporting claims remain active
* Any claim which has no active counterclaims is described as "active" and possibly true
* Any claim which has at least one active counterclaim is described as "inactive" and presumed to be false
* A response claim may require a chain of reasoning in support; in this case:
** each link of the chain becomes its own claim, subject to the same rules as any other claim
** failure (deactivation) of any one of the links in the chain invalidates (deactivates) the claim (normal claims remain active as long as any ''one'' supporting claim remains active)

For example, a claim may have several counterclaims, but if they have all been countered as well, then the main claim remains active and will be considered true.

===Point terminology===
* '''keyclaim''' (aka ''"target claim", "starting claim", "mainpoint"'') -- the starting point of a debate; the claim that is ultimately under debate within a given scope
* '''point''': an argument for or against a claim
* '''parent''': the point which a claim is supporting or countering. Every point has a parent except for the keyclaim.
* '''subpoint''' (aka ''"response claim"'')
* '''support point''': (aka ''"propoint"'')
* '''counter point''': (aka ''"conpoint"'')

An example of how to follow these rules without any specialized software (e.g. within a nonthreaded forum or social network) is given [[/plaintext|here]]. (It's a lot of work, though; hence the need for software.)

'''Curatorial notes''': Another explanation of the rules, written later than the above was originally written, is archived [[/v2010.03|here]]. The explanation above is based on an earlier (2009) explanation and should probably be updated to use the 2010 terminology.

==Cross-connections==
* Since multiple political arguments may hinge on a particular fact, the outcome of any debate may be used as a claim within another debate, in which case the children of that debate's root claim become children of the current claim, and the same rules apply. This lets us reuse already-established truths rather than having to hash them out again each time.
* In order to make participants more accountable for their decisions, we might require that every issue up for vote be stated as a structured debate claim. If an individual votes against the conclusion reached by the debate, we might require them to sign off on each supporting argument they are thereby disagreeing with, or perhaps display each active counterargument in a publicly visible way. This will put some "peer pressure" on individuals not to simply ignore the results of the debates, require some accountability for those who do, and also give a better idea of which premises are being taken less seriously.
* There should also be some way for individuals to vote their (dis)approval of any claim in any debate. This would:
** let us get a very quick and dynamic indication of how much support there is for any given "fact" in our debate database
** let us provide, as an almost competitive kind of thing, individuals to be notified when claims they have "endorsed" are contradicted, e.g. "Your claim has been challeged! You agreed that ''(text of claim)'', but this has been countered with ''(text of counter)''. Do you wish to respond? [link]"
* Some further refinements will probably be necessary when adapting this system for making time-dependent decisions.
==Exploratory Option==
It may be useful to have an option for a less ''rigorous'' but still ''structured'' debate, where territory is still being mapped out and participants are not so much ''disagreeing'' with each other as engaging in a sort of question-and-answer volley. A good example is [[issuepedia:User:Woozle/debate/progressive conservatism#Differences|here]]. "Exploratory" seems like a good name for this mode. It would omit the tracking of pro-and-con and focus more on identifying the individual participants, which establishes individual beliefs and positions at various locations in the issue's "terrain" without necessarily inciting conflict.

Later on, we might add categorization-tagging of each point so we could (for example) quickly look up all of a given participant's statements on a given issue, or all participants' statements on that issue. (This would also require the ability for participants to go back and clarify or comment on their positions, especially if they change in the light of later evidence.)
==Debate-hostile environments==
In theory, a structured debate can be held in an unstructured plaintext discussion environment such as Google+ or Facebook; rules and an example for doing this are [[/plaintext|here]]. This format does require significantly more discipline from the participants, however.

Structured debate/rules

2019-11-12T01:56:38Z

Woozle: /* Terms */

Structured debate/rules

2019-11-12T01:56:02Z

Woozle: moved lots of stuff here from parent page; rearranged more sensibly

{| style="float: right; background: #cceeff; border: 1px solid black;" width=30%
|-
|<h2>Example</h2>
* '''claim''': Socrates is mortal
** '''support''': Socrates is mortal because he is a man.
*** '''requirement''': All men are mortal.
*** '''requirement''': Socrates is a man.
** '''support''': Socrates is dead, therefore he was mortal.
*** '''requirement''': Socrates is dead.
*** '''requirement''': Death is sufficient to demonstrate mortality.
** '''counter''': Socrates's works have endured for millennia, therefore he is immortal.
*** '''counter''': This is an argument that Socrates's ''works'' are immortal, not that he ''himself'' is immortal.

|}
__TOC__
==Debate Structure==
A [[structured debate]] starts with a conclusion, then presents supportive and contradictory evidence until it becomes clear whether the initial claim is adequately supported.

Other sets of rules are possible, but they must satisfy the non-negotiable [[/meta|meta-rules]] of reasoned debate.
==Reasoning==
In order to be [[rational]]ly defensible, any '''claim''' must be based on one or more '''premises''' which are combined into a conclusion via a '''logical operation''' (either "if all of X are true, then Y must be true" or "if any of X are true, then Y must be true"). An individual can either agree with the conclusion, or can dispute either the reasoning or the premises. Faulty reasoning is pretty obvious once it's pointed out; faulty evidence is generally based on further evidence-plus-reasoning which may itself be agreeable or not.

Any premise, when disputed, becomes another claim to be examined; this process can be repeated ("drilling down") until a set of claims is reached upon which no further debate seems possible ("drilling down to bedrock").

During the process of drilling down into any given claim, one eventually finds one of the following:
* '''bad reasoning''': the conclusion is not supported by the premises given
* '''lack of evidence''': the logic-tree is unsupported at some critical point, invalidating the ultimate claim
* '''fundamental agreement''': premises that everyone can agree on (plus valid reasoning all the way up) -- the conclusion is valid
* '''fundamental disagreement''': one or more items of logic remain in dispute, with no apparent way to drill down any further

While sentient beings will inevitably be illogical at times, mapping the debate should make it clear (or at least much clearer) to any reasonable observer – that is, any observer who is honestly ''attempting'' to seek the truth – where the illogic lies: which conclusions follows logically, and which do not.
==Terms==
''The following lists seem to have grown organically in separate locations, and the divisions between them may need to be rethought.)''

===Debate terminology===
* An '''[[issuepedia:argument|argument]]''' is a set of assertions that logically draw a '''conclusion''' from a set of '''premises'''.
* Any argument is in a '''false state''' if either the logic or the premises are '''disputed'''.
* An argument that disputes the conclusion of another argument is also called a '''counterargument'''.
* Any counterargument is itself an argument, and may be further disputed.
* An argument is in a '''true state''' unless it is countered by one or more counterarguments which are themselves in a true state.

===Application terminology===
* Every argument starts with a '''keyclaim''' which asserts as fact the subject of the debate.
* Any '''claim''' may be answered by zero or more '''response claim'''s
* Each '''response claim''' must relate to the target claim in one of the following ways:
** '''Support''': an argument that the parent claim is true
** '''Counter''': an argument that the parent claim is false
** '''Informal''' (or "informational"): information which neither supports nor contradicts the parent claim but helps narrow or guide the discussion in some way
* Any '''response claim''' may also be viewed as a target claim, and the rules for target claims (given above) apply without modification
* Any claim may either be '''standalone''' or '''bundled''':
** A standalone claim remains active as long as it has ''at least one'' active supporting claim
** A bundled claim remains active only as long as ''all'' of its supporting claims remain active
* Any claim which has no active counterclaims is described as "active" and possibly true
* Any claim which has at least one active counterclaim is described as "inactive" and presumed to be false
* A response claim may require a chain of reasoning in support; in this case:
** each link of the chain becomes its own claim, subject to the same rules as any other claim
** failure (deactivation) of any one of the links in the chain invalidates (deactivates) the claim (normal claims remain active as long as any ''one'' supporting claim remains active)

For example, a claim may have several counterclaims, but if they have all been countered as well, then the main claim remains active and will be considered true.

===Point terminology===
* '''keyclaim''' (aka ''"target claim", "starting claim", "mainpoint"'') -- the starting point of a debate; the claim that is ultimately under debate within a given scope
* '''point''': an argument for or against a claim
* '''parent''': the point which a claim is supporting or countering. Every point has a parent except for the keyclaim.
* '''subpoint''' (aka ''"response claim"'')
* '''support point''': (aka ''"propoint"'')
* '''counter point''': (aka ''"conpoint"'')

An example of how to follow these rules without any specialized software (e.g. within a nonthreaded forum or social network) is given [[/plaintext|here]]. (It's a lot of work, though; hence the need for software.)

'''Curatorial notes''': Another explanation of the rules, written later than the above was originally written, is archived [[/v2010.03|here]]. The explanation above is based on an earlier (2009) explanation and should probably be updated to use the 2010 terminology.
==Cross-connections==
* Since multiple political arguments may hinge on a particular fact, the outcome of any debate may be used as a claim within another debate, in which case the children of that debate's root claim become children of the current claim, and the same rules apply. This lets us reuse already-established truths rather than having to hash them out again each time.
* In order to make participants more accountable for their decisions, we might require that every issue up for vote be stated as a structured debate claim. If an individual votes against the conclusion reached by the debate, we might require them to sign off on each supporting argument they are thereby disagreeing with, or perhaps display each active counterargument in a publicly visible way. This will put some "peer pressure" on individuals not to simply ignore the results of the debates, require some accountability for those who do, and also give a better idea of which premises are being taken less seriously.
* There should also be some way for individuals to vote their (dis)approval of any claim in any debate. This would:
** let us get a very quick and dynamic indication of how much support there is for any given "fact" in our debate database
** let us provide, as an almost competitive kind of thing, individuals to be notified when claims they have "endorsed" are contradicted, e.g. "Your claim has been challeged! You agreed that ''(text of claim)'', but this has been countered with ''(text of counter)''. Do you wish to respond? [link]"
* Some further refinements will probably be necessary when adapting this system for making time-dependent decisions.
==Exploratory Option==
It may be useful to have an option for a less ''rigorous'' but still ''structured'' debate, where territory is still being mapped out and participants are not so much ''disagreeing'' with each other as engaging in a sort of question-and-answer volley. A good example is [[issuepedia:User:Woozle/debate/progressive conservatism#Differences|here]]. "Exploratory" seems like a good name for this mode. It would omit the tracking of pro-and-con and focus more on identifying the individual participants, which establishes individual beliefs and positions at various locations in the issue's "terrain" without necessarily inciting conflict.

Later on, we might add categorization-tagging of each point so we could (for example) quickly look up all of a given participant's statements on a given issue, or all participants' statements on that issue. (This would also require the ability for participants to go back and clarify or comment on their positions, especially if they change in the light of later evidence.)

Liquid agenda

2019-10-16T23:00:19Z

Woozle:

==About==
A [[liquid agenda]] system is a system which allows any participant to:
* propose issues or problems to be solved (referred to here as "questions")
* propose any number of solutions or preferred outcomes for each question (referred to here as "answers")
* rate each proposed solution on a semicontinuous scale which allows both negative and positive indications (i.e. [[range voting]])
** the vote would ideally be handled by something like [[weighted proxy voting]]
** there would need to be some kind of [[credibility management]] to minimize trolling and vote spamming
The individual ratings can then be summed up and acted upon according to whatever algorithm or process has been previously deemed appropriate by the votership.

There is a more technical discussion [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|on HTYP]].
==Purpose==
The purpose of this system is to prevent any individual or group from controlling the agenda, thereby limiting the possible outcomes only to those they find acceptable and thus effectively controlling the decisionmaking process while continuing to provide the appearance of choice.
==History==
The beginnings of this idea were described in {{l/ip|Issuepedia:Voting}} (written 2007).
==Links==
===Official===
* [http://htyp.org/InstaGov/Liquid_Agenda technical documentation]
* [http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/liquid-agenda project manager]
===Relevant===
* '''2010-10-24''' [http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sunday-4-the-kickstarter-social-mechanism/ Social Software Sunday #4 – The “Kickstarter” social mechanism]: a similar idea (with a variation and a generalization) is proposed

Liquid agenda

2019-10-14T21:48:22Z

Woozle: /* Purpose */

==About==
A [[liquid agenda]] system is a system which allows any participant to:
* propose issues or problems to be solved (referred to here as "questions")
* propose any number of solutions or preferred outcomes for each question (referred to here as "answers")
* rate each proposed solution on a semicontinuous scale which allows both negative and positive indications (i.e. [[range voting]])
** the vote would ideally be handled by something like [[weighted proxy voting]]
** there would need to be some kind of [[credibility management]] to minimize trolling and vote spamming
The individual ratings can then be summed up and acted upon according to whatever algorithm or process has been previously deemed appropriate by the votership.

There is a more technical discussion [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|on HTYP]].
==Purpose==
The purpose of this system is to prevent any individual or group from controlling the agenda, thereby limiting the possible outcomes only to those they find acceptable and thus effectively controlling the decisionmaking process while continuing to provide the appearance of choice.

==Links==
===Official===
* [http://htyp.org/InstaGov/Liquid_Agenda technical documentation]
* [http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/liquid-agenda project manager]
===Relevant===
* '''2010-10-24''' [http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sunday-4-the-kickstarter-social-mechanism/ Social Software Sunday #4 – The “Kickstarter” social mechanism]: a similar idea (with a variation and a generalization) is proposed

Opt-in market socialism

2019-05-12T00:58:28Z

Woozle: better place for "rather than" statement

[[category:ideas]]
[[category:government]]
[[category:pages from ICMS]]
'''Opt-In Market Socialism''': a resolution to the dispute over taxation and social safety nets
==The Basic Split==
America seems to have two primary visions of what society and government should be like, each of which is more or less in exact disagreement with the other on certain key points.

Broadly speaking, we have:

* '''Libertarians / [[wikipedia:anarcho-capitalism|anarcho-capitalists]] / market capitalists / conservatives''' who argue that government should be "small" and unobtrusive, only the fittest should survive, individuals should be self-reliant, and competition between businesses will solve the problem of optimizing goods and services for the benefit of all, and income inequality is simply a reflection of the fact that some people are winners and some are losers (i.e. economically unproductive people become poor because they're economically unproductive).

Let's call that ^ philosophy [[issuepedia:Frontierism|Frontierism]].

* '''Liberals / socialists''' who argue that there should be a social safety net because even the most self-sufficient person can run into bad luck and need a little help and private charity has historically been woefully inadequate, poor people are economically unproductive mostly because they're poor, and free contraception saves money, and free medical care saves money, and sex education reduces unwanted pregnancies, and legal/safe abortion leads to a saner society, and income inequality is bad, and pollution is bad, and workers deserve universal safety standards... and a whole slew of other things the other group tends not to like.

...and let's call that ^ [[issuepedia:Supportism|Supportism]].

From here, the Frontierist side seems to be winning (with a few minutes of research, I believe I could pull up a long litany of recent Frontierist legislation). Arguments supporting the Frontierist position seem to have wide, solidly-based appeal, despite being easily refuted.

What if we didn't have to have one system for everyone?

What if individuals could choose, upon achieving adulthood, which kind of system they'd rather be in -- one with more obligations and more benefits, or one with more of a frontier "you're on your own" mentality? What if we could just let this whole argument go -- those of us who want a safety net can create it, and those who want to make use of it can make use of it, and everyone else can have all the ineffective government they want?

The obvious catch... well, there are several obvious catches, but I suspect this is the key one... is what you do when a Frontierist runs into trouble they can't handle, and asks the Supportist system for help <ref name=note1 />. If anyone can switch systems whenever they need help, then we have the classic "insurance" problem: everybody will be a Frontierist (no taxes! no obligations!) until they need help, then join the Supportists until they're back on their feet, then return to the Frontierists -- or, at least, there will be a strong economic incentive to do so.<ref name=note2 />

I don't know what the solution is, but it seems likely that there is one. Some obvious ideas -- Frontierists joining the Supportist society<ref name=note3 /> could be required to choose from the following list (which might be restricted depending on their circumstances):

# Surrender all their existing assets and start over at the lowest rung of Supportist society (which we would design to be quite tolerable, given the nature of Supportism)
# Agree to be a spokesperson for Supportism for some length of time -- perhaps proportional to how long they have been a Frontierist, or proportional to how much help they needed to get back to a state of equilibrium...
# Put them in a special extra-high tax bracket for some length of time (see #2)

Anyway... going with the assumption that this problem can be solved, here's the next "what-if":
==Government Competition==
Instead of having one monolithic Supportist government, how about setting up lots of different ones, each one trying a different set of parameters (e.g. rules for Frontierist joiners, how taxation works, how the social safety net works...)

In other words, let socialist governments compete in the marketplace. (Hey, is that ironic, possibly?)

The following advantages to this system suggest themselves (in addition to being able to work out the optimal parameters through artificial selection over time):

(a) We could start relatively small -- how many people do we need to have in order for the average of the fortunes and misfortunes of individual members to have an acceptable likelihood of remaining within reasonable bounds over some length of time (say, 20 years)?

(b) If any individual Supportist government becomes evil, people could just leave it for another one.

Yes, there are lots of issues that would need to be resolved, but the only one that looks like it might be a show-stopper is that there are a lot of issues on which you can't isolate people from each other's decisions. If the Supportists have a water-monitoring program for local streams, Frontierists benefit from it. If Supportists determine that a certain factory is polluting the stream, but the factory owner is a Frontierist, there's no obvious way to stop the pollution.

So maybe there would have to be a geographic element to this as well... which is when the idea starts collapsing back towards more conventional political boundaries, which (I think) has been shown not to be a satisfactory solution. So maybe we need to find other ways of dealing with those "in my back yard" problems.

==Footnotes==
<references>
<ref name=note1>coughcoughAynRandcough</ref>
<ref name=note2>Many people, of course, do have principles and would not do this -- many Frontierists would sooner die than accept Supportist help, and many Supportists would stick with their system even if they didn't expect to need it themselves, knowing that their membership helps pay for help that others need ...but we can't count on there being enough principled people to keep Supportism economically solvent, given that there will be unprincipled people.</ref>
<ref name=note3>presumably this would most often happen in an emergency, we'd probably have to extend some trust, expend some resources with no promise and take the chance that they'd renege... but we could withhold full service until they agreed to the terms -- e.g. put out the fire, but don't help rebuild; do the life-saving operation, but not the one that fixes the problem.</ref>
</references>
==Links==
* Originally posted [https://plus.google.com/111304337631160193138/posts/9fVe9aLfWRY on Google+], with substantial discussion
* '''2017-05-13''' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4gPEywt8J8 Professor Richard Wolff at Democracy at Work Los Angeles.] (video, part 1; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4gPEywt8J8 part 2]): at 22:00, proposes a scenario which seems to have a certain amount in common with OIMS

Main Page

2019-01-29T23:40:11Z

Woozle: /* Related Projects */ CitizenOS

<big>'''InstaGov''' is a set of tools for instant self-governance via computer network. It is currently under development. It will be open-source and distributed/federated.</big>
__NOTOC__
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Goals==
* to invent functional and productive techniques of stateless (non-hierarchical) democratic self-governance
* to test and demonstrate these techniques starting on a small scale and working progressively upward
* to watch for exploit holes and "gaming" of these implementations, and work out ways to defeat these while they are still small
* to eventually make traditional government both unnecessary and irrelevant
In order to work towards these goals, it is necessary to better understand the [[mechanics of power]].

Restrictions on the sampling of public opinion, and its conversion into binding decisions, are a thing which may once have been necessary but which is now basically preventing democracy from taking place.
"restrictions on the sampling of public opinion" means:
# Elections only happen at set times, with long intervals in between
# What or who people can vote for is determined by those already in power
# The means of expression on votable issues is limited to favoring a single one, rather than expressing the degree to which one approves or disapproves of each(edited)
Proposed changes (there are some details to work out in each of these, but this is the basic idea):
: A. Any voter should be able to [[liquid agenda|propose agenda items at any time]]
: B. Any voter should be able to proxy their decisions in any given subject area to another voter of their choosing (subject-specific liquid democracy)
: C. (this part is not logically required, but I think it will be important) There should be a [[debate mapper|system of rational debate]] available, to which issues of sufficient importance should be subjected before they can be enacted.
| valign=top |
==External Pages==
* [[htyp:InstaGov|Design documents]]
* [[issuepedia:InstaGov|Philosophy]]
* [http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/igov Project manager / bug tracker]
* Google+: <echo raw now><a href="https://plus.google.com/111304337631160193138" rel="publisher" class="external text">page</a></echo> and [https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117423839385292311095 community]
|}
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Modules==
* [[liquid agenda]]
* [[debate mapper]]
* [[P2P Accountability Enforcement]]
* [[categorization]]
* [[proxy voting]]
** [[weighted proxy voting|weighted]]
| valign=top |

==Methodology==
* [[cooperatives]]
* [[governance methods]]: alternatives
* [[inquest]]
* [[liquid democracy]]
* [[liquid representation]]
* [[rational debate]]
* [[stages of change]]
| valign=top |

==Applications==
* [[democratic militia]]
* [[federated retail]]
* [[structured debate]]: a set of rules for [[rational debate]]
* solutions to the [[taxation problem]]:
** [[co-operatization of large companies]]
** [[opt-in market socialism]]
** [[socialized land ownership]]
| valign=top |
==Presentation==
* [[Collaborative network]]
* [[Circling the wagons]]
* [[International Citizens' Union]]
* [[Premises]]
* [[Structural overview]]
* [[Social business coalition]]
* [[Solutions]]
* [[US House of Commons]]
|}

==Related Projects==
* [https://citizenos.com/product/ CitizenOS]: proprietary decisionmaking platform
* [http://democracyos.org/ DemocracyOS]: liquid democracy implementation ([https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/06/12/case-against-bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-and-philanthropy-we-know-it via] [https://social.coop/users/ntnsndr/updates/4088 via author on Mastodon]): code is on GitHub
* Liquid Agenda and the Debate Mapper could probably benefit from having a UI like [https://github.com/Agora-Project/agora-meteor this], at least as an option. ([https://witches.town/@Angle author on Mastodon])
* '''[http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-humanity-online-project The Humanity Online Project]'''
* '''[https://love.loomio.org/real-democracy-needs-to-include-everyone Loomio]'''
** [https://loomio.coop/ software co-op]
* '''[[Liquid Feedback]]''' (a project of the Pirate Party)
* '''Make Your Laws''': [http://makeyourlaws.org main site] .. [http://wiki.makeyourlaws.org wiki] .. [https://plus.google.com/100183759660923071401/about Google+]
===proprietary / centralized===
* [http://www.deliberator.com/ Deliberator]: very similar to [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|Liquid Agenda]], but more heavily moderated and produced
* [https://blog.kialo.com/kialo-hello-world-d12ac78a320a Kialo]: similar to [[debate mapper]]
* [https://www.loomio.org/ Loomio]: "a user-friendly tool for group decision-making. Creating a world where it’s easy for anyone to participate in decisions that affect them." Subscription is pay-what-you-like; looks like interaction may be limited to "groups".
* [http://participedia.net/en Participedia] "open global knowledge community for researchers and practitioners in the field of democratic innovation and public engagement."
* [https://www.popvox.com/ PopVox] ([https://plus.google.com/115845584660035325057 Google+]): tell US Congress your opinion of bills
* [http://participedia.net/en/organizations/wikivote WikiVote] "Russian non-governmental organization which goal is to develop effective means of citizens’ participation in lawmaking and strategic planning"
* [http://thespark.org/ The Spark] "Users post and vote on PROBLEMS that we face as a global community. The most popular problems are voted to the top. Users then post and vote on SOLUTIONS so that the community can take ACTION." - sounds similar to [[liquid agenda]]
===techniques===
* [[wikipedia:Participatory politics]]: hierarchical representation carried out more thoroughly
** [http://web.archive.org/web/20140327013949/http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/5490 Professional Politicians Beware!] by Aaron Swartz ([http://50.81.205.197/photo_album/chron/2017/2017_02_21-book_review-the_boy_who_could_change_the_world-the_writings_of_aaron_swartz/politics.html via])
* [[wikipedia:Rational consensus]]: the method is not currently described in the article, but perhaps the article will be expanded soon. A user has described this system thusly: "ideas are based on known facts and good practices."

===discussion===
* [http://online-governance.quora.com/ Quora]
===plans===
* [https://sites.google.com/site/equalityincorporated/ Equality Incorporated] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/112240283217111217636/posts/DKe7hDFuq38 discussion])
* [http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan Wolf PAC]
* '''2013-07-31''' [http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-democrats-can-reclaim-north-carolina-government/Content?oid=3685711 How Democrats can reclaim North Carolina government]

Main Page

2018-12-21T01:55:22Z

Woozle: added items typed up on Discord just now

<big>'''InstaGov''' is a set of tools for instant self-governance via computer network. It is currently under development. It will be open-source and distributed/federated.</big>
__NOTOC__
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Goals==
* to invent functional and productive techniques of stateless (non-hierarchical) democratic self-governance
* to test and demonstrate these techniques starting on a small scale and working progressively upward
* to watch for exploit holes and "gaming" of these implementations, and work out ways to defeat these while they are still small
* to eventually make traditional government both unnecessary and irrelevant
In order to work towards these goals, it is necessary to better understand the [[mechanics of power]].

Restrictions on the sampling of public opinion, and its conversion into binding decisions, are a thing which may once have been necessary but which is now basically preventing democracy from taking place.
"restrictions on the sampling of public opinion" means:
# Elections only happen at set times, with long intervals in between
# What or who people can vote for is determined by those already in power
# The means of expression on votable issues is limited to favoring a single one, rather than expressing the degree to which one approves or disapproves of each(edited)
Proposed changes (there are some details to work out in each of these, but this is the basic idea):
: A. Any voter should be able to [[liquid agenda|propose agenda items at any time]]
: B. Any voter should be able to proxy their decisions in any given subject area to another voter of their choosing (subject-specific liquid democracy)
: C. (this part is not logically required, but I think it will be important) There should be a [[debate mapper|system of rational debate]] available, to which issues of sufficient importance should be subjected before they can be enacted.
| valign=top |
==External Pages==
* [[htyp:InstaGov|Design documents]]
* [[issuepedia:InstaGov|Philosophy]]
* [http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/igov Project manager / bug tracker]
* Google+: <echo raw now><a href="https://plus.google.com/111304337631160193138" rel="publisher" class="external text">page</a></echo> and [https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117423839385292311095 community]
|}
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Modules==
* [[liquid agenda]]
* [[debate mapper]]
* [[P2P Accountability Enforcement]]
* [[categorization]]
* [[proxy voting]]
** [[weighted proxy voting|weighted]]
| valign=top |

==Methodology==
* [[cooperatives]]
* [[governance methods]]: alternatives
* [[inquest]]
* [[liquid democracy]]
* [[liquid representation]]
* [[rational debate]]
* [[stages of change]]
| valign=top |

==Applications==
* [[democratic militia]]
* [[federated retail]]
* [[structured debate]]: a set of rules for [[rational debate]]
* solutions to the [[taxation problem]]:
** [[co-operatization of large companies]]
** [[opt-in market socialism]]
** [[socialized land ownership]]
| valign=top |
==Presentation==
* [[Collaborative network]]
* [[Circling the wagons]]
* [[International Citizens' Union]]
* [[Premises]]
* [[Structural overview]]
* [[Social business coalition]]
* [[Solutions]]
* [[US House of Commons]]
|}

==Related Projects==
* [http://democracyos.org/ DemocracyOS]: liquid democracy implementation ([https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/06/12/case-against-bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-and-philanthropy-we-know-it via] [https://social.coop/users/ntnsndr/updates/4088 via author on Mastodon]): code is on GitHub
* Liquid Agenda and the Debate Mapper could probably benefit from having a UI like [https://github.com/Agora-Project/agora-meteor this], at least as an option. ([https://witches.town/@Angle author on Mastodon])
* '''[http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-humanity-online-project The Humanity Online Project]'''
* '''[https://love.loomio.org/real-democracy-needs-to-include-everyone Loomio]'''
** [https://loomio.coop/ software co-op]
* '''[[Liquid Feedback]]''' (a project of the Pirate Party)
* '''Make Your Laws''': [http://makeyourlaws.org main site] .. [http://wiki.makeyourlaws.org wiki] .. [https://plus.google.com/100183759660923071401/about Google+]
===proprietary / centralized===
* [http://www.deliberator.com/ Deliberator]: very similar to [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|Liquid Agenda]], but more heavily moderated and produced
* [https://blog.kialo.com/kialo-hello-world-d12ac78a320a Kialo]: similar to [[debate mapper]]
* [https://www.loomio.org/ Loomio]: "a user-friendly tool for group decision-making. Creating a world where it’s easy for anyone to participate in decisions that affect them." Subscription is pay-what-you-like; looks like interaction may be limited to "groups".
* [http://participedia.net/en Participedia] "open global knowledge community for researchers and practitioners in the field of democratic innovation and public engagement."
* [https://www.popvox.com/ PopVox] ([https://plus.google.com/115845584660035325057 Google+]): tell US Congress your opinion of bills
* [http://participedia.net/en/organizations/wikivote WikiVote] "Russian non-governmental organization which goal is to develop effective means of citizens’ participation in lawmaking and strategic planning"
* [http://thespark.org/ The Spark] "Users post and vote on PROBLEMS that we face as a global community. The most popular problems are voted to the top. Users then post and vote on SOLUTIONS so that the community can take ACTION." - sounds similar to [[liquid agenda]]
===techniques===
* [[wikipedia:Participatory politics]]: hierarchical representation carried out more thoroughly
** [http://web.archive.org/web/20140327013949/http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/5490 Professional Politicians Beware!] by Aaron Swartz ([http://50.81.205.197/photo_album/chron/2017/2017_02_21-book_review-the_boy_who_could_change_the_world-the_writings_of_aaron_swartz/politics.html via])
* [[wikipedia:Rational consensus]]: the method is not currently described in the article, but perhaps the article will be expanded soon. A user has described this system thusly: "ideas are based on known facts and good practices."

===discussion===
* [http://online-governance.quora.com/ Quora]
===plans===
* [https://sites.google.com/site/equalityincorporated/ Equality Incorporated] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/112240283217111217636/posts/DKe7hDFuq38 discussion])
* [http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan Wolf PAC]
* '''2013-07-31''' [http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-democrats-can-reclaim-north-carolina-government/Content?oid=3685711 How Democrats can reclaim North Carolina government]

Federated retail

2018-05-31T14:23:56Z

Woozle: /* Links */

[[category:pages from ICMS]]
==About==
[[Federated retail]] (aka [[distributed retail]]) is a business concept in which independent retail operations work together like stores in a retail chain using distributed software nodes in order to gain many of the advantages possessed by larger retail chains while providing a number of additional benefits.

The core idea is to provide resources that will enable certain types of less-privileged businesses to be able to better compete against larger businesses that use less socially-beneficial practices (due to their ability to insulate themselves from accountability and competition).
==How it works==
The primary service would be to merge the catalogs of all member-retailers (MRs) into a single search engine database, of which all MRs would have a copy. They could choose to allow searching the entire database via their site (as an sort of "loss-leader" to bring in users), or could restrict it to only their particular company's offerings, or could in other ways filter the content. Anyone could copy the database and provide search interfaces, whether or not they were members of the network.

The search feature would include the ability to filter by distance from a given location, so that users could find items closest to them.

A secondary service would be to aggregate restocking into larger wholesale orders in order to get better pricing and have more clout with suppliers.

Once the network is in place, it seems likely that further services will suggest themselves. Third parties will be free to create new services using the standard open-source APIs and distributed database that will be created and maintained by network members.

There are several possible revenue models for maintaining the network infrastructure.
==Goals==
Federated retail is intended to serve the following goals:
* distributing retail profits more equitably and meritocratically (rather than going solely to the owners of a few large chains)
* better serving the public good
* increasing [[economic resiliency]] and [[local autonomy]]
** reducing tight dependencies on particular supply-chains by creating more of a supply ecosystem
* [[starving the corporate beast]]
* promoting alternatives to [[business neo-standard]] practices (e.g. big-box retail, chain stores, bottom-line worship)
* encouraging open, [[democratic]], [[accountable]], [[transparent]], and [[sustainable]] processes in every aspect of public life, especially business
* encouraging sustainability in the manufacture and delivery of products and services
** providing support services to those who conduct business in a sustainable way
*** e.g. legal support for dealing with regulations designed to favor large-scale enterprises over smaller ones
** rating products and services according to their sustainability using [[supply-chain sousveillance]]
* exploring the use of new tools for commerce, especially those that the mainstream have been reluctant to adopt (e.g. [[icms:in-store search station|in-store search station]]s)
==Qualifications==
The types of businesses this concept would aim to support would include:
* businesses whose practices are sustainable or encourage sustainability (primary goal)
* businesses who do a substantial amount of business locally (because this promotes [[local autonomy]], [[economic resiliency]], [[sustainability]], and [[accountability]])
* businesses who seek to minimize their dependency on businesses that do ''not'' meet these qualifications
* businesses not primarily owned by members of the investor class (profit should not go to those who already have more than enough)

==Resources==
===web site===
The initial resource to get this network off the ground would be an online database and web site that would serve as an interface between the various entities (buyers and sellers) in the network:
* sellers (whether businesses or not) could enter in lists of items they have for sale
* customers could enter shopping lists (which could be anything), and the web site would let them know where it is available. (The site could even plan a shopping trip to minimize travel distance, expense, etc.)
* sellers would be aware of what items customers were looking for, and could investigate the possibility of selling those items (via making connections with new suppliers, special orders to existing suppliers, or creating items in-house)
===computer help===
Member businesses would receive assistance, to the extent that resources are available, with:
* connecting their inventory systems to the online database
* systematizing and streamlining their inventory and ordering processes
===other benefits===
Members would probably offer each other discounts, to encourage repeat business and knowing that they are all serving some common goals that benefit everyone.
===preliminary guidelines===
* There would be no rigid distinction between "buyers" and "sellers"; anyone in the network can be either, at any time.
* There would be no fixed membership fee; the means for gathering resources needed to keep the network running and healthy would be decided on in a democratic way. This could be a transaction fee or percentage that would be adjusted regularly by popular vote, voluntary contributions from individual buyers and sellers in exchange for name recognition or advertising, or by any other method the members decide upon at any given time.
===software===
The software to run the web site and database will be:
* open-source, free for anyone else to use and adapt
* designed so that multiple instances can network
* designed to ease replication of member data

This has the following benefits
* if any particular co-op node becomes corrupt, "taken over" by powermongery, members can take the code and member data and go start a new one.
* multiple nodes designed to appeal to different markets or mindsets can co-exist and network together
* nodes primarily serving different geographic areas can network together to find the ''nearest'' provider for a given item, when it is not available within the purview of a particular node
* decentralization:
** if one node experiences technical difficulties, this will only affect a relatively small number of people
** other nodes should be able to "fill in" for a node that is "down", allowing people affected by an outage to continue doing business in some capacity

==Future Problems==
Target businesses might see the co-op as competition rather than a mutually beneficial project, and be reluctant to suggest it to their customers.

At some point, this project will likely face stiff opposition from the [[unsustainable business community]]. This will probably take the form of everything from regulatory changes to surprise government inspections or even arrests of members on trumped-up charges, depending on the level of government corruption in various areas served by the co-op.

==Implementation==
There are three main aspects to implementation of this idea:
# business plan (for the first node, anyway)
# software (design and coding)
#* a standard for business data exchange is probably the first design requirement
# people interfacing (i.e. getting people interested in using it)

==Links==
* Should be able to federate with sites like [http://www.sunflower.cafe/ sunflower.cafe] (service is [https://www.bigcartel.com/ bigcartel], looks proprietary)
** So, probably can't federate -- but we can provide a service ''like'' that which federates.
* This would not be just a "price search engine" like [https://pricepi.com/ PricePi].
* [http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page Value Network] (wiki)
* [[Worker's Self-Directed Enterprises]] - [http://www.democracyatwork.info/learn/?topic=form How do I form a WSDE?]
* [http://p2pfoundation.net/Phyles Phyles] are "business-empowered communities: they are not companies linked to a community, but transnational communities that have acquired enterprises in order to gain continuity in time and robustness"
* [[htyp:Bazar|Bazar]] "is like a social network. Each company has its tab, publish your news for businesses that may be interested in their products or provide you with reliability at higher prices." ... "has a structure used to generate distributed markets. .. The Bazaar distributed structure makes it possible that multiple Bazaars interconnected. You can download the software , and integrate businesses in your environment or you can offer business services and develop, based Bazar, your own business model."
* '''2017-04-10''' [https://www.recode.net/2017/4/9/15234376/twitter-acquisition-sale-co-op Of course, a bunch of Twitter users want to buy the company and turn it into a co-op]: it's not going to happen, but the details are of interest
* '''2015-01-02''' [http://blog.ahrefs.com/the-1-search-trend-you-cant-ignore-anymore-in-2015/ The 1 Search Trend You Can’t Ignore Anymore in 2015]: Google's increasing monetization of search makes it difficult for small operations to be found
* '''2012-12-11''' [http://www.globalresearch.ca/decentralize-big-retail-how-to-uproot-walmart-and-bring-jobs-back-home/5315125 Decentralize Big-Retail: How to Uproot Walmart and Bring Jobs Back Home]
** '''2012-12-25''' [http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/decentralizing-big-retailers-in-a-systemic-p2p-way/2012/12/25 Decentralizing big retailers in a systemic p2p way]
* '''2013-08-23''' [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/LTHhMZzE5u8 Okay, folks, here's how we can start fixing things]: a post in which I explain some of the ideas here

Main Page

2018-03-21T10:02:29Z

Woozle: /* Presentation */ Removed useless "Roadmap" page

<big>'''InstaGov''' is a set of tools for instant self-governance via computer network. It is currently under development. It will be open-source and distributed/federated.</big>
__NOTOC__
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Goals==
* to invent functional and productive techniques of stateless (non-hierarchical) democratic self-governance
* to test and demonstrate these techniques starting on a small scale and working progressively upward
* to watch for exploit holes and "gaming" of these implementations, and work out ways to defeat these while they are still small
* to eventually make traditional government both unnecessary and irrelevant
In order to work towards these goals, it is necessary to better understand the [[mechanics of power]].
| valign=top |
==External Pages==
* [[htyp:InstaGov|Design documents]]
* [[issuepedia:InstaGov|Philosophy]]
* [http://bugs.hypertwins.org/projects/igov Project manager / bug tracker]
* Google+: <echo raw now><a href="https://plus.google.com/111304337631160193138" rel="publisher" class="external text">page</a></echo> and [https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117423839385292311095 community]
|}
{| width=100%
|-
| valign=top |
==Modules==
* [[liquid agenda]]
* [[debate mapper]]
* [[P2P Accountability Enforcement]]
* [[categorization]]
* [[proxy voting]]
** [[weighted proxy voting|weighted]]
| valign=top |

==Methodology==
* [[cooperatives]]
* [[governance methods]]: alternatives
* [[inquest]]
* [[liquid democracy]]
* [[liquid representation]]
* [[rational debate]]
* [[stages of change]]
| valign=top |

==Applications==
* [[democratic militia]]
* [[federated retail]]
* [[structured debate]]: a set of rules for [[rational debate]]
* solutions to the [[taxation problem]]:
** [[co-operatization of large companies]]
** [[opt-in market socialism]]
** [[socialized land ownership]]
| valign=top |
==Presentation==
* [[Collaborative network]]
* [[Circling the wagons]]
* [[International Citizens' Union]]
* [[Premises]]
* [[Structural overview]]
* [[Social business coalition]]
* [[Solutions]]
* [[US House of Commons]]
|}

==Related Projects==
* [http://democracyos.org/ DemocracyOS]: liquid democracy implementation ([https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/06/12/case-against-bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-and-philanthropy-we-know-it via] [https://social.coop/users/ntnsndr/updates/4088 via author on Mastodon]): code is on GitHub
* Liquid Agenda and the Debate Mapper could probably benefit from having a UI like [https://github.com/Agora-Project/agora-meteor this], at least as an option. ([https://witches.town/@Angle author on Mastodon])
* '''[http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-humanity-online-project The Humanity Online Project]'''
* '''[https://love.loomio.org/real-democracy-needs-to-include-everyone Loomio]'''
** [https://loomio.coop/ software co-op]
* '''[[Liquid Feedback]]''' (a project of the Pirate Party)
* '''Make Your Laws''': [http://makeyourlaws.org main site] .. [http://wiki.makeyourlaws.org wiki] .. [https://plus.google.com/100183759660923071401/about Google+]
===proprietary / centralized===
* [http://www.deliberator.com/ Deliberator]: very similar to [[htyp:InstaGov/Liquid Agenda|Liquid Agenda]], but more heavily moderated and produced
* [https://blog.kialo.com/kialo-hello-world-d12ac78a320a Kialo]: similar to [[debate mapper]]
* [https://www.loomio.org/ Loomio]: "a user-friendly tool for group decision-making. Creating a world where it’s easy for anyone to participate in decisions that affect them." Subscription is pay-what-you-like; looks like interaction may be limited to "groups".
* [http://participedia.net/en Participedia] "open global knowledge community for researchers and practitioners in the field of democratic innovation and public engagement."
* [https://www.popvox.com/ PopVox] ([https://plus.google.com/115845584660035325057 Google+]): tell US Congress your opinion of bills
* [http://participedia.net/en/organizations/wikivote WikiVote] "Russian non-governmental organization which goal is to develop effective means of citizens’ participation in lawmaking and strategic planning"
* [http://thespark.org/ The Spark] "Users post and vote on PROBLEMS that we face as a global community. The most popular problems are voted to the top. Users then post and vote on SOLUTIONS so that the community can take ACTION." - sounds similar to [[liquid agenda]]
===techniques===
* [[wikipedia:Participatory politics]]: hierarchical representation carried out more thoroughly
** [http://web.archive.org/web/20140327013949/http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/5490 Professional Politicians Beware!] by Aaron Swartz ([http://50.81.205.197/photo_album/chron/2017/2017_02_21-book_review-the_boy_who_could_change_the_world-the_writings_of_aaron_swartz/politics.html via])
* [[wikipedia:Rational consensus]]: the method is not currently described in the article, but perhaps the article will be expanded soon. A user has described this system thusly: "ideas are based on known facts and good practices."

===discussion===
* [http://online-governance.quora.com/ Quora]
===plans===
* [https://sites.google.com/site/equalityincorporated/ Equality Incorporated] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/112240283217111217636/posts/DKe7hDFuq38 discussion])
* [http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan Wolf PAC]
* '''2013-07-31''' [http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-democrats-can-reclaim-north-carolina-government/Content?oid=3685711 How Democrats can reclaim North Carolina government]

Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement

2017-10-24T13:13:53Z

Woozle: deleted Periscope page -- content moved to Mechanisms

==About==
[[Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement]] is a methodology for sharply reducing the problem of posting content in bad faith (including both outright verbal abuse as well as abuses that are harder to spot, such as {{l/ip|sea-lioning}}) by allowing users to collectively delegate other trusted users to rate comments and commenters as to their credibility and appropriateness. It generally increases per-user accountability for abuse, but with the source of that accountability being other users rather than a central authority (with all the bottlenecking and [[power-concentration]] that implies).

Pages:
* [[/purpose]] - this needs to be a bit more general
* [[/mechanism]] - the quasi-technical details
==Notes==
Things that credibility management ''should'' be able to defeat or at least control:
* [[sea-lioning]] (see {{issuepedia|sea-lioning}}): appears civil and polite on the surface, so may be difficult to judge without understanding the full context
* [[brigading]] -- though it may take a combination of credibility management and [[debate mapping]]:
** '''2015-07-17''' [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/07/17/there-are-good-reasons-ive-never-been-a-fan-of-reddit/ There are good reasons I’ve never been a fan of Reddit]
* [[evaporative cooling]]:
** '''2010-10-10''' [http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sundays-2-the-evaporative-cooling-effect/ Social Software Sundays #2 – The Evaporative Cooling Effect]
* [[click-farming]] ...except I'm not understanding the value of having fake followers:
** '''2015-04-20''' [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121551/bot-bubble-click-farms-have-inflated-social-media-currency How Click Farms Have Inflated Social Media Currency]
*** private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/MGmWGw3vUBx here]
* [[online harassment]]
** '''2014-10-09''' [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-unsafety-net-how-social-media-turned-against-women/381261/ The Unsafety Net: How Social Media Turned Against Women] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/+CindyBrown/posts/8Ahnx7mVciy via])

Credibility management is beginning to look potentially useful for rating subjective quality of aesthetic works. Some discussion of that application is here:
* '''2014-06-20''' [http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28jfk4/content_rating_moderation_and_ranking_systems/ Content rating, moderation, and ranking systems: some non-brief thoughts] (Edward Morbius).
** Related: '''2014-09-21''' [http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2h0h81 Specifying a Universal Online Media Payment Syndication System]
*** which was a sequel to: '''2014-01-08''' [http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modest_proposal_universal_online_media_payment/# A Modest Proposal: Universal Online Media Payment Syndication]
* '''2012-02-08''' [http://torrentfreak.com/tribler-makes-bittorrent-impossible-to-shut-down-120208/ Tribler Makes BitTorrent Impossible to Shut Down] ([http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/piracy-now-unstoppable-new-file-sharing-network-cant-be-shut-down/ via]) "Where most torrent sites have a team of moderators to delete viruses, malware and fake files, Tribler '''uses crowd-sourcing to keep the network clean.''' Content is verified by user generated “channels”, which can be “liked” by others. When more people like a channel, the associated torrents get a boost in the search results."
* '''2011-02-05''' [http://www.quora.com/What-is-Quoras-algorithm-formula-for-determining-the-ordering-ranking-of-answers-on-a-question What is Quora's algorithm/formula for determining the ordering/ranking of answers on a question?]: this is a similar concept on the surface, but lacks some important elements:
** no proxying/layering -- all ratings are direct
** no personalized credibility ratings (PCRs)
** minimal granularity, i.e. only two possible values (-1/+1) for each ranking

Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement/mechanism

2017-10-24T13:13:09Z

Woozle: /* Other Reputation Systems */ Periscope (adapted from subpage to be deleted)

Improved control over malusers requires both finer granularity in the blocking system and a more even-handed, less-centralized way of deciding who needs to be restricted.

The following mechanisms should address most or all of the above shortcomings. In particular, the process of allowing a given user A to avoid posts by user B based ''only'' on the ratings of ''other users explicitly trusted by A'' should help to overcome bias and snap judgements.

While it could still be not especially difficult for a user to create their own personal "echo chamber" under this system, it would be notably less easy than existing systems where any user has complete control over who they block -- and would become progressively more difficult the more people one "trusts". This should help to limit the damage done by attempts at [[issuepedia:epistemic closure|epistemic closure]].

The key elements of P2PAE are:
* {{l/sub|CR}}: crowdsourced ratings (as opposed to centralized or automated; most proposals include this)
* {{l/sub|RV}}: range voting (ratings are nonbinary and bipolar)
* {{l/sub|CW}}: credibility-weighting (all ratings are not created equal)
* {{l/sub|PCV}}: personalized credibility view (users don't all see the same numbers for other users)

Many refinements and elaborations are possible. Experimentation will determine what works best.
==Comparison to Traditional Moderation==
This design should greatly increase the effectiveness of a site in correctly assigning levels of trust to users, both initially and on an ongoing basis, greatly widening the "admin bottleneck" often encountered when trying to get abusive users banned or restricted.

It also allows more users to actually participate in the day-to-day running of the site, which is a good thing in terms of building a genuine, functional, sustainable working community.
==Other Reputation Systems==
* {{l/wp|Reddit}} allows upvoting and downvoting (CR), but it's binary (not RV), rigidly egalitarian (no CW), and global (no PCV).
* '''2017-10-23''' [https://medium.com/@MoreAndAgain/twitter-reputation-3697e585e323 Improve Twitter’s Reputation by Giving Users One]
** The article proposes a simple system where each user can assign a rating to any other user. This includes CR and RV, but not CW or PCV.
** This was mentioned [https://mammouth.cafe/users/wion/statuses/934838 here] as an example of a system that won't work.
* '''2017-10-11''' [https://tokeneconomy.co/the-colony-whitepaper-review-64c12459eb29 Colony Whitepaper Review: A framework for decentralized organizations]
** I am skeptical of this. It waves around a lot of ideas without getting specific about them.
** I am also automatically skeptical, anymore, of anything that mentions "blockchain" without an apology and clear explanation.
** Listed here only because it involves a "reputation system".
* '''2016-05-31''' [http://www.dailydot.com/technology/periscope-harassment-tools/ Periscope's new safety features will allow users to report, judge, and ban abusive comments] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MarlaCaldwell/posts/iMxFN3BgQja via])
** The main difference between Periscope's implementation and mine is that they randomly choose people to decide, rather than letting users build up a trust network of users who vote when they feel like it. Could be less partial, but (like any randomly-chosen jury) could also be stupider. Does not implement PCV or CW; arguably a crude form of CR, not sure about the rest.
** It also might be a way to bridge the gap when a new network doesn't yet have enough "trust" connections to make practical use of P2PAE.
** It may have practical applications beyond comment-policing.

==Miscellaneous==
* [[/refinements]]: some stuff that may be interfering with getting the basic concept across, and probably needs rewriting anyway

Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement/mechanism

2017-10-24T13:08:38Z

Woozle: /* Other Reputation Systems */

Improved control over malusers requires both finer granularity in the blocking system and a more even-handed, less-centralized way of deciding who needs to be restricted.

The following mechanisms should address most or all of the above shortcomings. In particular, the process of allowing a given user A to avoid posts by user B based ''only'' on the ratings of ''other users explicitly trusted by A'' should help to overcome bias and snap judgements.

While it could still be not especially difficult for a user to create their own personal "echo chamber" under this system, it would be notably less easy than existing systems where any user has complete control over who they block -- and would become progressively more difficult the more people one "trusts". This should help to limit the damage done by attempts at [[issuepedia:epistemic closure|epistemic closure]].

The key elements of P2PAE are:
* {{l/sub|CR}}: crowdsourced ratings (as opposed to centralized or automated; most proposals include this)
* {{l/sub|RV}}: range voting (ratings are nonbinary and bipolar)
* {{l/sub|CW}}: credibility-weighting (all ratings are not created equal)
* {{l/sub|PCV}}: personalized credibility view (users don't all see the same numbers for other users)

Many refinements and elaborations are possible. Experimentation will determine what works best.
==Comparison to Traditional Moderation==
This design should greatly increase the effectiveness of a site in correctly assigning levels of trust to users, both initially and on an ongoing basis, greatly widening the "admin bottleneck" often encountered when trying to get abusive users banned or restricted.

It also allows more users to actually participate in the day-to-day running of the site, which is a good thing in terms of building a genuine, functional, sustainable working community.
==Other Reputation Systems==
* {{l/wp|Reddit}} allows upvoting and downvoting (CR), but it's binary (not RV), rigidly egalitarian (no CW), and global (no PCV).
* '''2017-10-23''' [https://medium.com/@MoreAndAgain/twitter-reputation-3697e585e323 Improve Twitter’s Reputation by Giving Users One]
** The article proposes a simple system where each user can assign a rating to any other user. This includes CR and RV, but not CW or PCV.
** This was mentioned [https://mammouth.cafe/users/wion/statuses/934838 here] as an example of a system that won't work.
* '''2017-10-11''' [https://tokeneconomy.co/the-colony-whitepaper-review-64c12459eb29 Colony Whitepaper Review: A framework for decentralized organizations]
** I am skeptical of this. It waves around a lot of ideas without getting specific about them.
** I am also automatically skeptical, anymore, of anything that mentions "blockchain" without an apology and clear explanation.
** Listed here only because it involves a "reputation system".

==Miscellaneous==
* [[/refinements]]: some stuff that may be interfering with getting the basic concept across, and probably needs rewriting anyway

Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement/mechanism

2017-10-24T12:06:18Z

Woozle: /* Other Reputation Systems */

Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement/mechanism/PCV

2017-10-24T11:53:49Z

Woozle: /* not enough friends */ dealing with decisions that affect everyone

'''Personalized Credibility View''' (PCV) means that for each user A who wants an evaluation of user B who is previously unknown to them, A will see a rating for B that is individually calculated for A based on A's ratings of other users they ''do'' know and the ratings that any of those users have assigned to B.

(This requires [[../CW|credibility weighting]] in order to be possible.)

More formally:
* For each pair of users A and B, where A wants an evaluation of B's credibility, a '''PCV''' is calculated as follows:
** For every user C who has been given a positive rating by A (ArC) and who has rated B (CrB), the system sums all (ArC/10 x CrB/10) to produce a single rating of B for A -- representing, essentially, "what my friends think of this person".

On Google+, we attempt a crude approximation of this system by having invite-only groups where individuals share links to problematic accounts. When we join such a community, We are essentially selecting a group of others to pre-emptively warn us of other users we should avoid.
==Example==
Let's say we have users C and D, where D is a sockpuppet for C.

In an attempt to game the system by giving themselves more credibility, D (actually C using an alternate login) rates C highly and C rates D highly. If every user saw the same aggregate ratings for every other user, even if they were [[../CW|weighted by credibility]], then D's vote for C would help boost C's overall ratings (and their votes for each other would help boost the significance of their votes). If that wasn't enough, C could perhaps create a hundred or a thousand other sockpuppet accounts, and have them all rate C highly. This creates a situation where all that is needed in order to maintain or create a positive credibility rating is sufficient time -- which is to say, funding. Money would effectively buy credibility.

In a PCV system, though, no user's rating of any other user has global weight, and each individual user decides for themselves who has weight for them.

Naive user E might not have figured this out, but users A and B caught onto it earlier and downrated C, D, and any other sockpuppets they were able to identify.
==Wrinkles==
===novice judgment===
One tricky part is in how novices decide who to take seriously. The pattern I have followed -- and which I think is followed ''by the kind of people I like to read'' -- is to rate highly those whose output matches my values of (e.g.) honesty, compassion, consistency, and rationality. People who hew to those values are likely to notice and downrate others who do not -- such as sockpuppets and others with power-based agendas such as spammers and harassers, not to mention Nazis.

While this does leave users free to choose bad advice, it also offers a way out when they realize that the people they've chosen to trust for that advice are letting in people they do not like: re-evaluate your evaluators.

...which is why PCV is important. On a system with a single rating for each user, users have no recourse but to complain to management when that rating produces bad results.

===not enough friends===
A related situation is when user A doesn't have enough (or any) links to user B to get a reliable evaluation. Options for dealing with this include:
# Looking further afield, following the FOAF (friend-of-a-friend) chain -- i.e. have any of C's friends rated B? How about their friends?
# Any given site running InstaGov could designate a handful (as in {{l/wp|Dunbar's number}} or less) of default advisors (DAs). These DAs would automatically be assigned as "friends" for new users, but they would not have any other privileges; users would be free to adjust their ratings of DAs like they can for any other user.

The second option would also deal with decisions that affect everyone's experience, such as what content should be publicly (anonymously) visible.

Side note: It might be a good idea to visually indicate the reliability/strength of a PCV (based on the number of inputs and, negatively, on the length of any FOAF chains) somehow.

Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement/mechanism

2017-10-24T11:53:26Z

Woozle: complete rewrite -- individual elements in subpages, moved refinements to subpages too