Author
|
Topic: Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves? (Read 815 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
« on: 2003-08-29 18:47:55 » |
 |
What do you suggest?
David
p.s. One good rule for creating voting issues might be to avoid biasing the outcome by the phrasing
of the question.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Sapiens
To: virus
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:21 PM
Subject: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
[Jake] While I find this interesting feedback, it really strikes me as rule by incestuous polling.
Have we mistaken a useful feedback mechanism for an appropriate control mechanism? Important issues
of Virian Doctrine deserve better consideration.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
 |
Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-29 19:26:21 » |
|
Actually, if Jake had bothered to examine the Virian Wiki and particularly the very relevant pages at:He might not have posted as he did. Particularly as prior to his establishment of this silly vote, he had access to cooperate on the work of developing the policy. Which in fact deals with the kind of vote he established at the last mentioned http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/WikiVote under Revoting and the kind of bias he inserted (supra)
Quote:| Vote topics should not include slanted questions or adjectives, but should simply contain the wiki page title. The topic must point to the wiki page title for the vote to be valid. Advocacy should be restricted to the BBS or official (logged) Virian IRC channels. Virians are encouraged to ignore private communications advocating voting in a particular fashion. |
Seeing as Jake was part of the wiki project almost from the beginning, are we to assume that he is not in favor of this approach any more? If so what is he suggesting?
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
« Reply #2 on: 2003-08-29 21:50:48 » |
|
[Hermit] Game over
[Jake] While I find this interesting feedback, it really strikes me as rule by incestuous polling. Have we mistaken a useful feedback mechanism for an appropriate control mechanism? Important issues of Virian Doctrine deserve better consideration.
This voting/reputation system is an appropriate feedback mechanism, but not appropriate for control. 15.53 (25.19%)
This voting/reputation system is an appropriate feedback and control mechanism 37.85 (61.41%)
This voting/reputation system is not appropriate for either feedback or control. 1.77 (2.87%)
Other (please explain on Virus 2003 email list.) 6.49 (10.53%)
decisiveness (22.33%)
unvoted equity (38.36%)
voted equity (61.64%)
Overwhelming conclusion is that, "This voting/reputation system is an appropriate feedback and control mechanism"
I guess that tells us we are doing the right thing...
Thanks.
Now go and read the wiki :-)
Hermit
PS Incest is what you are doing when you are experiencing relative humidity. It can be fun. But avoid progeny. It tends to result in the expression of harmful recessives.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
« Reply #3 on: 2003-08-29 23:15:33 » |
|
[Hermit]
Game over.
[rhinoceros]
A strange game. It looks like Jake won by losing.
[Jake]
While I find this interesting feedback, it really strikes me as rule by incestuous polling. Have we mistaken a useful feedback mechanism for an appropriate control mechanism? Important issues of Virian Doctrine deserve better consideration.
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=;action=voteResults;idvote=42
[rhinoceros]
I do see a point in Jake's vote topic, although I would put it somehow differently.
Before getting into the specifics, I should point out that there seem to be objections to the fact that Jake posted that vote topic in the way he did, as allowed by the system. This very fact seems to be an argument *for* Jake. In principle, Jake's vote topic could have produced a result without even being disussed.
About our reputation/voiting system: It is a very good mechanism which can be part of a control system, but not an acceptable full blown control system. We'll have to figure out its limitations and take care of them with a kind of a "constitution", "bill of rights", or whatever else it takes. For example, should a majority of, say, 80% be able to silence a minority of 20% just on the grounds of disagreement? Or should they have to prove that those people harm the community? The important thing is to put our administrative efforts in the service of our more general goals such as growing in numbers, attracting thinking people and especially young ones who won't take anyone's word for granted, and making our discussions more deep, diverse, and entertaining. We should also take into account that this is an online community, not a real life environment, and that we have to compete with other forums for the most valuable and interesting people.
Back to the vote system. I can see several main categories of topics on my screen. There are factual polls, opinion polls, votes on philosphical/worldview questions, votes on general CoV administration questions, votes on personal CoV administration questions and so on. Apparently, the meaning and the significance of a vote is not the same for all these categories. For example, what is the significance of a majority vote on "what is truth" or on the "pusuit of happiness" or on "human nature"? Would someone who is in the minority on some of these topics be subject to a "Disciplinary process", according to this?
http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/DisciplinaryProcess
"If somebody asserts that they are a member of this community, then the opinion and will of the community is binding upon that member, and the will of the community governs that persons acceptance as a member."
Or should that person keep their mouth shut until they get a chance to sneak in some votes to change the consensus, *if* that particular poll happens to be still open. I am jesting, of course, because I don't think this is what a vote on those topics signifies. Or is it?
The pure administrative votes have a different significance. There are two issues here. First, the way the poll is implemented (title and options), as Lucifer pointed out in the case of Jake's post. I will just add that emotional expressions and adjectives are not the only way in which one can try to influence the voters. Second, no matter how wise and influential the voters are, nothing can replace a good discussion which will bring the thorny side-issues to the surface. In my opinion, this is the most important point in Jake's vote topic. I suggest we require a discussion in the BBS where the participants should have a certain total amount of equity for any important and/or binding administrative and/or personal issues. A frictionless vote cast is not likely to grasp the implications of a decision.
By the way, here is another problem, although not directly related to the topic of this thread. I think the reputation votes are somehow one-dimensional. That is, suppose I give someone a high rating for his knowledge and quality of posts and then something new comes up and I realize that he has been using his influence acting on some of his other qualities which I did not appreciate. However, I had to vote on the full package. Is there an easy way to resolved this? Maybe in the future we will be able to embed our simple reputaton algorithm in a more complex structure. In real life, law is separate from administration, and the control mechanisms for both are also different.
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
« Reply #4 on: 2003-08-30 19:25:12 » |
|
Hermit,
These just look like pages that you recently authored yourself. You seem
to be taking upon yourself powers that have been reserved by David Lucifer
to be exercised by and through Nomicon. Just because David allowed (as the
sheriff) one vote to be authoritative in regards to Joe Dees and Myself,
doesn't mean that you can now take that as authoritative procedure for you
to unilaterally author Virian Doctrine via the polling system. Unless of
course this IS what David intended. Perhaps I missed that memo from him.
What is this "silly question" business, Hermit? I reserve the right to ask
silly questions so just get over yourself.
Love,
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Hermit <virus@hermit.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 08/29/2003 4:26:22 PM
> Subject: Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
>
>
> Actually, if Jake had bothered to examine the Virian Wiki
(http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki) and particularly the very relevant pages
at:http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirianPolicy
> http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/WikiPageStatus
> http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Voting
> http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/WikiVoteHe might not have posted as he
did. Partiucularly as prior to his establishment of this silly vote, he had
access to cooperate on the work of developing the policy. Which in fact
deals with the kind of vote he established at the last mentioned
http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/WikiVote under Revoting and the kind of bias
he inserted (supra) Vote topics should not include slanted questions or
adjectives, but should simply contain the wiki page title. The topic must
point to the wiki page title for the vote to be valid. Advocacy should be
restricted to the BBS or official (logged) Virian IRC channels. Virians are
encouraged to ignore private communications advocating voting in a
particular fashion.
>
> Seeing as Jake was part of the wiki project almost from the beginning,
are we to assume that he is not in favor of this approach any more? If so
what is he suggesting?
>
> Hermit
>
>
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
>
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=291
74>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
« Reply #5 on: 2003-08-30 19:44:23 » |
|
I think that if we are creating doctrine etc, that a more deliberative
process is better. Something wherein people take more direct
responsibility for their decisions by at least revealing votes to each
other and thereby discussing them more. This Reputation/voting system
isn't what I had in mind when I envisioned a Virian Council. But that is
in fact the way that Hermit is currently using the system. I think it is
far too open to unreflective caprice. I had no problem with you as sheriff
using it for feedback in trying to make an executive decision, but it seems
now that Hermit has taken this as the green light to start laying down
Virian doctrine. Did I miss a memo from you somewhere along the line?
Love,
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 08/29/2003 3:47:55 PM
> Subject: Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
>
> What do you suggest?
>
> David
>
> p.s. One good rule for creating voting issues might be to avoid biasing
the outcome by the phrasing
> of the question.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jake Sapiens
> To: virus
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:21 PM
> Subject: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
>
>
> [Jake] While I find this interesting feedback, it really strikes me as
rule by incestuous polling.
> Have we mistaken a useful feedback mechanism for an appropriate control
mechanism? Important issues
> of Virian Doctrine deserve better consideration.
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
« Reply #6 on: 2003-08-30 19:52:41 » |
|
> [Original Message]
> From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 08/29/2003 3:47:55 PM
> Subject: Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
>
> What do you suggest?
>
> David
>
> p.s. One good rule for creating voting issues might be to avoid biasing
the outcome by the phrasing
> of the question.
I didn't advertise my opinion as anything other than my opinion (hence the
"[Jake]" at the beginning of the question.)" The choices left plenty of
options for those who disagree with me to express themselves. I don't see
anything wrong with this especially since I didn't intend for this to poll
to be binding Virian Doctrine, but I guess that may not seem clear as
Hermit by contrast seems intent on making all of his pools binding Virian
doctrine.
Sincerely,
-Jake
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jake Sapiens
> To: virus
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:21 PM
> Subject: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
>
>
> [Jake] While I find this interesting feedback, it really strikes me as
rule by incestuous polling.
> Have we mistaken a useful feedback mechanism for an appropriate control
mechanism? Important issues
> of Virian Doctrine deserve better consideration.
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re: virus: Is this really how we want to govern ourselves?
« Reply #7 on: 2003-08-30 23:37:42 » |
|
[Jake Sapiens 1] http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=;action=voteResults;idvote=42
[David Lucifer 2]
[Hermit 3]
[Hermit 4]
[Rhinoceros 5]
[Hermit 6]
[Hermit 4] Game over.
[rhinoceros 5] A strange game. It looks like Jake won by losing.
[Hermit 6] Not really, as previously mentioned, there is an evolving set of "rules" growing via an informal nomic on the wiki. For example, the http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirianVoting page (previously just Voting) has been extensively updated due to the discussions between myself and DavidLucifer consequent on Jake's vote. Even so, I strongly suggest that the vote he established has not moved the game ahead any more than would have been the case had he raised it on the wiki, So I'm not sure how this can be perceived as a victory. Jake is, naturally, not only welcome to participate in that game, he has been invited to do so - repeatedly, In my opinion, his playing a different and more complex game, with different rules and with the potential to be highly divisive, in an evironment which has seen sufficient conflict to last a lifetime, does not help the CoV or its members nearly as much as his keen eye and clear phrasing might on the wiki.
[Jake 1] While I find this interesting feedback, it really strikes me as rule by incestuous polling. Have we mistaken a useful feedback mechanism for an appropriate control mechanism? Important issues of Virian Doctrine deserve better consideration.
[Hermit 6] As I mentioned to Rhinoceros on IRC, I'm not sure that any of us knows what Jake meant here? I even wonder if Jake did so himself?
[rhinoceros 5] I do see a point in Jake's vote topic, although I would put it somehow differently.
[Hermit 6] Jake can directly address any difficulties he perceives on the wiki or on IRC. So why did he think that he needed to play games.
[rhinoceros 5] Before getting into the specifics, I should point out that there seem to be objections to the fact that Jake posted that vote topic in the way he did, as allowed by the system. This very fact seems to be an argument *for* Jake. In principle, Jake's vote topic could have produced a result without even being disussed.
[Hermit 6] Because if he thinks the system is wrong, then he is wrong to support it and has a responsibility to address it via the best forms of communications availabel. If he does not think the system is wrong, then his post seemed unecessarily slanted. Which doesn't make sense. So I'm hoping Jake decides to communicate directly, as it seems to me that, there is much less potential for confusion and misunderstanding when talking as opposed to tossing,
[Hermit 6] Mysterious hints, that is.
[rhinoceros 5] About our reputation/voiting system: It is a very good mechanism which can be part of a control system, but not an acceptable full blown control system. We'll have to figure out its limitations and take care of them with a kind of a "constitution", "bill of rights", or whatever else it takes. For example, should a majority of, say, 80% be able to silence a minority of 20% just on the grounds of disagreement? Or should they have to prove that those people harm the community?
[Hermit 6] Conventional religions tend to have at least two things which in our case, we have not got. Common goals and strong government. They also tend to have something else which our "Reputation system" begins to provide. A clearly defined body of people who set and apply "norms". If only because defining rules and establishing "ecclesiatical courts" to maintain order in a "church" environment is very difficult to implement unless the church is the government. Because there is no way to enforce judgements. However, they are able to define who is and is not welcome in their temples and what behaviour is acceptable - and not. And will invite people to leave when it is clear that they are incompatible. The rulebase being developed on the wiki is an attempt to generate the same for us.
[rhinoceros 5] The important thing is to put our administrative efforts in the service of our more general goals such as growing in numbers, attracting thinking people and especially young ones who won't take anyone's word for granted, and making our discussions more deep, diverse, and entertaining. We should also take into account that this is an online community, not a real life environment, and that we have to compete with other forums for the most valuable and interesting people.
[Hermit 6] I couldn't agree with you more. However when spending 500+ hours a week on dealing with explosions and people who think we should not have rules, goals or a target memberset, it is difficult to make progress. With a little luck, perhaps we can get past this stage and start working on the fun stuff?
[rhinoceros 5] Back to the vote system. I can see several main categories of topics on my screen. There are factual polls, opinion polls, votes on philosphical/worldview questions, votes on general CoV administration questions, votes on personal CoV administration questions and so on. Apparently, the meaning and the significance of a vote is not the same for all these categories. For example, what is the significance of a majority vote on "what is truth" or on the "pusuit of happiness" or on "human nature"? Would someone who is in the minority on some of these topics be subject to a "Disciplinary process", according to this?
[Hermit 6] Agreed. You will find this discussed at both http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirianVoting and http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/WikiVoting. I'd suggest that informational polls are not intended to result in anything but deciding what our current membership looks like, suggest who our target membership should include and help in discussing compatability vs diversity. The more we know about ourselves, the easier this will be.
[rhinoceros 5] http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/DisciplinaryProcess
Quote:| "If somebody asserts that they are a member of this community, then the opinion and will of the community is binding upon that member, and the will of the community governs that persons acceptance as a member." |
[rhinoceros 5] Or should that person keep their mouth shut until they get a chance to sneak in some votes to change the consensus, *if* that particular poll happens to be still open. I am jesting, of course, because I don't think this is what a vote on those topics signifies. Or is it?
[Hermit 6] Hopefully this is "asked and answered" above. These are two different issues. On the one hand, members of the community should be working towards the goal of making the community an appealing place to be. When it is clear that a member is not working towards that goal, the membership has the right (and I say obligation) to persuade the dissenter to fit in or fuck off. On the other, there is the fact that a rich tapestry of diverse opinion makes the community a more appealing place. The one speaks to intent, the other speaks to character. I see no conflict between these two, as you observe, very different goals.
[rhinoceros 5] The pure administrative votes have a different significance. There are two issues here. First, the way the poll is implemented (title and options), as Lucifer pointed out in the case of Jake's post. I will just add that emotional expressions and adjectives are not the only way in which one can try to influence the voters. Second, no matter how wise and influential the voters are, nothing can replace a good discussion which will bring the thorny side-issues to the surface. In my opinion, this is the most important point in Jake's vote topic. I suggest we require a discussion in the BBS where the participants should have a certain total amount of equity for any important and/or binding administrative and/or personal issues. A frictionless vote cast is not likely to grasp the implications of a decision.
[Hermit 6] And against this are apathy and uninvolvement. Notice that we have 40 members in the "Congregation" (out of nearly 1700 on the list and BBS) and most polls receive support from only 60% of the equity held by the congregation. Until we increase these numbers dramatically, we will be horribly limited in what we can and can't say about the membership. So the idea is to get the system working and then make it more attractive to others by increasing the range of activities enabled by the reputation and poll systems.
[rhinoceros 5] By the way, here is another problem, although not directly related to the topic of this thread. I think the reputation votes are somehow one-dimensional. That is, suppose I give someone a high rating for his knowledge and quality of posts and then something new comes up and I realize that he has been using his influence acting on some of his other qualities which I did not appreciate. However, I had to vote on the full package. Is there an easy way to resolved this? Maybe in the future we will be able to embed our simple reputaton algorithm in a more complex structure. In real life, law is separate from administration, and the control mechanisms for both are also different.
[Hermit 6] The reputation is being based on the totality of the individual. We see a separate system taking that "reputation" as the "default" being applied to posts. In other words, we should end up being able to vote on a post-by-post basis, and possibly be able to set different criteria for use of different "focus boards" - and area that would have had a lot more attention if we were not up to ourt necks trying to deal with alligators of both the hostile and tame persuasion. My perspective was that "Jake's poll" was of the latter persuasion.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
