[MG] Project Idemocrazia - please have a look and join if

[Matteo Martini]

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Matteo Martini<***@teo72.com> wrote:

Much more complete than the last time I reviewed it. Unfortunately,
now I have a bunch of new criticisms
1) I repeat my criticism of last time that the "listicle" at the
beginning is not only not necessary, but counterproductive. Everybody
already knows how screwed up our current systems are, but
unfortunately they all disagree as to exactly*how*. This
Chomsky-esque list is going to be a huge turnoff for conservatives,
for example, and if you lose them, your entire system loses legitimacy
as a platform suitable for representing*all* The People.
REPLY) If people have a problem with *facts* is Their problem, not mine
Everything I have written is the truth and facts are easily checkable in the net

2) The political party requirement is a non-starter IMHO for the same
reason: You can't allow bundling people together who all agree on some
subset of issues because by doing so you're eliminating the majority
of people who don't agree on the "party platform" for those issues.
Again, legitimacy goes away when you do this.
REPLY) There is no political party requirement

3) I considered and rejected the multiple choice option for individual
issues because there is no practical way to combine votes into
majority opinion in most cases. It fails even in your "death penalty"
example: What is the decision if equal numbers of people choose each
option?
REPLY) This is a quite stupid objection
Assuming we have hundreds or thousands of votes, how frequently can we have exactly the same number of votes for 2 different options?

4) Of course it also doesn't deal with the SDAP/activert
participation-rate issue, the one issue I believe is the key to
success and the one thing thathttps://www.proxyfor.me/ handles
properly that no other system that I've heard of does.
REPLY) Ah, here we go..
You took the time to write a reply to me only as a sneaky way to promote your little system
So sad.
Anyway, I will have a look at it, even if it looks to me as it will never work
Same as the Airesis group, Pietro di Fenizio, the guys of Votorola you seem to be driven by your gigantic ego and looking at the software of your own dreams instead of looking at what people need
And therefore, yourhttps://www.proxyfor.me/ is deemed to fail
I predicted the failure of Votorola and I was right
I predicted the failure of Airesis (just ask Jacopo and Marino) and I was right
I predicted nobody would use Vilfredo and I was right
I now predict that nobody will use yourhttps://www.proxyfor.me/
Too complicated

5) Your delegation system can't work any better than the Liquid
Feedback system which the data clearly showed failed miserably to
properly represent the people. Again, only the proxyfor.me design
(i.e., automatic delegate/proxy assignment) can reliably do this
AFAIK.
REPLY)
My delegation system has nothing to do with Liquid Feedback and Liquid Feedback failed for internal strives and not for the delevation system

I'd therefore recommend you follow your own suggestion WRT
collaboration and figure out what, if anything, is wrong with
proxyfor.me and help fix that instead of proceeding with implementing
this proposal[..more self promotion..]
REPLY)
I will work with any software, any one, which is simple and easy to use and I predict will be used by the masses
Your software is just driven by your gigantic ego and will fail
Like Liquid Feedback
Like Airesis
Like Votorola
Like Vilfredo

[Jacopo Tolja]

Matteo this kind of answer really turn me off, because it is not in any way
educate to address other opinion as stupid or criticize someone to promote
their own project.

Objection to the statement "how frequently". It is probably not frequent
that someone win the lottery but sure someone do.

Now let me tell you that if you consider proxyfor.me too complicate i doubt
in your intelligence, so far the proxy vote that the system have given
match my vote so I see it as a promising addendum to a collaborative
proposal making software. In the same way I see Vilfredo as potential
method for collaborative paragraph editing of a proposal making software.
Voting multiple choice is not considered in proxyfor.me so far so the
voting in Airesis can be used where this may be necessary.
There is not a single "way" to address world problem and IMHO there will
never be one, but a network of interlaced and integrated intelligent
methods is the answer.
Peace
J





Il 22 Mag 2017 04:58, "Matteo Martini" <***@teo72.com> ha scritto:


On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Matteo Martini <***@teo72.com>
<***@teo72.com> wrote:


Much more complete than the last time I reviewed it. Unfortunately,
now I have a bunch of new criticisms
1) I repeat my criticism of last time that the "listicle" at the
beginning is not only not necessary, but counterproductive. Everybody
already knows how screwed up our current systems are, but
unfortunately they all disagree as to exactly **how**. This
Chomsky-esque list is going to be a huge turnoff for conservatives,
for example, and if you lose them, your entire system loses legitimacy
as a platform suitable for representing **all** The People.
REPLY) If people have a problem with *facts* is Their problem, not mine
Everything I have written is the truth and facts are easily checkable in the net

2) The political party requirement is a non-starter IMHO for the same
reason: You can't allow bundling people together who all agree on some
subset of issues because by doing so you're eliminating the majority
of people who don't agree on the "party platform" for those issues.
Again, legitimacy goes away when you do this.
REPLY) There is no political party requirement

3) I considered and rejected the multiple choice option for individual
issues because there is no practical way to combine votes into
majority opinion in most cases. It fails even in your "death penalty"
example: What is the decision if equal numbers of people choose each
option?
REPLY) This is a quite stupid objection
Assuming we have hundreds or thousands of votes, how frequently can we
have exactly the same number of votes for 2 different options?

4) Of course it also doesn't deal with the SDAP/activert
participation-rate issue, the one issue I believe is the key to
success and the one thing that https://www.proxyfor.me/ handles
properly that no other system that I've heard of does.
REPLY) Ah, here we go..
You took the time to write a reply to me only as a sneaky way to
promote your little system
So sad.
Anyway, I will have a look at it, even if it looks to me as it will never work
Same as the Airesis group, Pietro di Fenizio, the guys of Votorola you
seem to be driven by your gigantic ego and looking at the software of
your own dreams instead of looking at what people need
And therefore, your https://www.proxyfor.me/ is deemed to fail
I predicted the failure of Votorola and I was right
I predicted the failure of Airesis (just ask Jacopo and Marino) and I
was right
I predicted nobody would use Vilfredo and I was right
I now predict that nobody will use your https://www.proxyfor.me/
Too complicated

5) Your delegation system can't work any better than the Liquid
Feedback system which the data clearly showed failed miserably to
properly represent the people. Again, only the proxyfor.me design
(i.e., automatic delegate/proxy assignment) can reliably do this
AFAIK.
REPLY)
My delegation system has nothing to do with Liquid Feedback and Liquid
Feedback failed for internal strives and not for the delevation system

I'd therefore recommend you follow your own suggestion WRT
collaboration and figure out what, if anything, is wrong
withproxyfor.me and help fix that instead of proceeding with
implementing
this proposal[..more self promotion..]
REPLY)
I will work with any software, any one, which is simple and easy to
use and I predict will be used by the masses
Your software is just driven by your gigantic ego and will fail
Like Liquid Feedback
Like Airesis
Like Votorola
Like Vilfredo





_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

[Scott Raney]

Post by Jacopo Tolja
Matteo this kind of answer really turn me off, because it is not in any way
educate to address other opinion as stupid or criticize someone to promote
their own project.

Really, I'm doing him a huge favor: Taking the time to read and find
the flaws (and pointing out how some other system doesn't have them)
is the best way to help the creator make it better. IMHO the cruelest
thing is to allow people to continue to waste time on something that
you can easily find the flaws in that they seem to be blind to.

Post by Jacopo Tolja
Objection to the statement "how frequently". It is probably not frequent
that someone win the lottery but sure someone do.

Yeah, and it's not about frequency anyway: There's just no way to do
Condorcet-type combinations on things like his "Death Penalty"
example. The only reason techniques like that *appear* to work when
choosing representatives is because misrepresentative government is so
bad at "representing" us that we consider even getting it marginally
better a big improvement.

Post by Jacopo Tolja
Now let me tell you that if you consider proxyfor.me too complicate i doubt
in your intelligence, so far the proxy vote that the system have given match
my vote so I see it as a promising addendum to a collaborative proposal
making software. In the same way I see Vilfredo as potential method for
collaborative paragraph editing of a proposal making software. Voting
multiple choice is not considered in proxyfor.me so far so the voting in
Airesis can be used where this may be necessary.
There is not a single "way" to address world problem and IMHO there will
never be one, but a network of interlaced and integrated intelligent methods
is the answer.

Agreed, and we learn as much from seeing what *doesn't* work in the
various projects as we gain by "borrowing" the best parts. That paper
describing the failure of the LQFB delegation system I consider to be
the single greatest influence in my conception of how direct democracy
can be implemented.
Regards,
Scott

Post by Jacopo Tolja
Peace
J

[Scott Raney]

Post by Matteo Martini
I will work with any software, any one, which is simple and easy to use and
I predict will be used by the masses
Your software is just driven by your gigantic ego and will fail
Like Liquid Feedback
Like Airesis
Like Votorola
Like Vilfredo

This is a textbook example of an ad-hominem attack: If you lack the
facts or intellectual chops to criticize a proposal, criticize the
person who promotes it.

And I note that you didn't respond to any of the specific criticisms:
*That* is the real recipe for failure.
Regards,
Scott

[Scott Raney]

Apologies to the list: The formatting of his message was all screwed
up and I missed his using "REPLY" as a marker. I'll try again.

Post by Matteo Martini
Much more complete than the last time I reviewed it. Unfortunately,
now I have a bunch of new criticisms
1) I repeat my criticism of last time that the "listicle" at the
beginning is not only not necessary, but counterproductive. Everybody
already knows how screwed up our current systems are, but
unfortunately they all disagree as to exactly *how*. This
Chomsky-esque list is going to be a huge turnoff for conservatives,
for example, and if you lose them, your entire system loses legitimacy
as a platform suitable for representing *all* The People.
REPLY) If people have a problem with *facts* is Their problem, not mine
Everything I have written is the truth and facts are easily checkable in the net

Spoken as someone who has an agenda *other* than implementing
democracy: Your statements may indeed be factual (though I suspect
that most contain at least exaggerations if not outright falsehoods),
but again make it clear that your agenda is reigning in the US and
other superpowers, not doing anything for The People. They're just
tools for you to use in achieving your goals. This is exactly the kind
of thinking that brought us Mao and Stalin.

Post by Matteo Martini
2) The political party requirement is a non-starter IMHO for the same
reason: You can't allow bundling people together who all agree on some
subset of issues because by doing so you're eliminating the majority
of people who don't agree on the "party platform" for those issues.
Again, legitimacy goes away when you do this.
REPLY) There is no political party requirement

Please read your proposal again, specifically item 2.1, 4, 9, and 22.
Did you even write this thing?

Post by Matteo Martini
3) I considered and rejected the multiple choice option for individual
issues because there is no practical way to combine votes into
majority opinion in most cases. It fails even in your "death penalty"
example: What is the decision if equal numbers of people choose each
option?
REPLY) This is a quite stupid objection
Assuming we have hundreds or thousands of votes, how frequently can we have
exactly the same number of votes for 2 different options?

You missed the point: Your death penalty example (#15) has 7 possible
responses. How do you combine votes for each of them to reach a
decision?

Post by Matteo Martini
4) Of course it also doesn't deal with the SDAP/activert
participation-rate issue, the one issue I believe is the key to
success and the one thing that https://www.proxyfor.me/ handles
properly that no other system that I've heard of does.
REPLY) Ah, here we go..
You took the time to write a reply to me only as a sneaky way to promote your little system

No, but given that mine came before yours you should at least be
familiar with it before spouting off. Clearly you're not.

Post by Matteo Martini
So sad.
Anyway, I will have a look at it, even if it looks to me as it will never work
Same as the Airesis group, Pietro di Fenizio, the guys of Votorola you seem
to be driven by your gigantic ego and looking at the software of your own
dreams instead of looking at what people need.

I submit you have it exactly backwards: At least we're comfortable
with turning control over to the People. Until you get rid of the
screed that makes up the first half of your proposal it appears to be
more about how to manipulate them into achieving the outcomes *you*
specify.

Post by Matteo Martini
And therefore, your https://www.proxyfor.me/ is deemed to fail
I predicted the failure of Votorola and I was right
I predicted the failure of Airesis (just ask Jacopo and Marino) and I was right
I predicted nobody would use Vilfredo and I was right
I now predict that nobody will use your https://www.proxyfor.me/
Too complicated

Says the guy who hasn't invested even a few minutes to understand how
it works...

Post by Matteo Martini
5) Your delegation system can't work any better than the Liquid
Feedback system which the data clearly showed failed miserably to
properly represent the people. Again, only the proxyfor.me design
(i.e., automatic delegate/proxy assignment) can reliably do this
AFAIK.
REPLY)
My delegation system has nothing to do with Liquid Feedback and Liquid
Feedback failed for internal strives and not for the delevation system

I think again you're missing the point: The delegation system in LQFB
*didn't* work and therefore was a deal breaker for the adoption of the
system. If a system really does manage to capture The Will of The
People no amount of conflict in the SDAP leadership of the movement
will be able to stop it.
Regards,
Scott

[Matteo Martini]

Hi all,

thank you for your answers, despite I see many people disagreeing with
me here

The newsletter system is not, IMHO, the best system to work with as it
is quite difficult to quote someone in a clear and easy way

This said, I will reply in one mail to criticisms by both Jacopo and Scott

1)

Spoken as someone who has an agenda *other* than implementing
democracy: Your statements may indeed be factual (though I suspect
that most contain at least exaggerations if not outright falsehoods),
but again make it clear that your agenda is reigning in the US and
other superpowers, not doing anything for The People. They're just
tools for you to use in achieving your goals. This is exactly the kind
of thinking that brought us Mao and Stalin. (by Scott)
=> My statements are factual and you can check any of them in Wikipedia.
I have no agenda reigning in anyone. I just stated facts.
I criticized mostly the US and the West as, IMHO, they are the richest and most powerful people on the planet so they have the moral duty to behave well.
Islamic terrorists and crimes by Russians and Chinese have also be pointed out when they commit crimes
Telling me that the desire to pointing out war crimes and to promote direct democracy is the kind of thinking that brought us Mao and Stalin is an utterly moronic statement
In fact, one of the most moronic statements I have heard in my life (and I have heard many of them)

2)
This is a textbook example of an ad-hominem attack: If you lack the
facts or intellectual chops to criticize a proposal, criticize the
person who promotes it.
And I note that you didn't respond to any of the specific criticisms:
*That* is the real recipe for failure. (by Scott)

=> I criticized the proposals for one single reason: they failed
Airesis failed. This is a fact. Nobody really uses Airesis today. It
failed, Simple as that. Money, time and resources all wasted, so far.
Vilfredo failed. Same reason above
Am I attacking someone by saying the facts? I do not think so.
I also replied to your criticisms for as much as I could

3)

Really, I'm doing him a huge favor: Taking the time to read and find
the flaws (and pointing out how some other system doesn't have them)
is the best way to help the creator make it better. IMHO the cruelest
thing is to allow people to continue to waste time on something that
you can easily find the flaws in that they seem to be blind to.
(by Scott)
-> Thank you for the favour, but let me ask you..
If you know the flaws of the systems well, why have not you promoted a successful direct democracy system so far?
You have been here much longer than me, and you are talking with many people.
More than me.
If you are so smart to find the flaws in my system, can you please tell me how many governments and/or organizations are using yourhttps://www.proxyfor.me/?
Your system is already online, the one I am proposing is just an idea.
So there should be already tens if not hundreds of governments interested in working with you today.
Can you tell me who they are?
Since you are talking and discussing with Jacopo, Pietro and others, and they too have been promoting DD systems for years, could you tell me who is using any of their systems?
Airesis took years and the work of many many people to be brought to life. How many people are using it in the government today?
I have been hearing about Vilfredo for years. Same question

4)
Yeah, and it's not about frequency anyway: There's just no way to do
Condorcet-type combinations on things like his "Death Penalty"
example. The only reason techniques like that*appear* to work when
choosing representatives is because misrepresentative government is so
bad at "representing" us that we consider even getting it marginally
better a big improvement. (by Scott)

-> I am looking for marginally better improvements.
There are usually the ones which work.
I would not ask Pietro and Jacopo and you for designing the best system that solves ALL the problems in the world as you have all tried to do so
And failed
And you have yet to understand this simple point, apparently.
So I set the bar for any system a little bit lower
As I do not like failures

5)
Agreed, and we learn as much from seeing what*doesn't* work in the
various projects as we gain by "borrowing" the best parts. That paper
describing the failure of the LQFB delegation system I consider to be
the single greatest influence in my conception of how direct democracy
can be implemented. (by Scott)

-> You are talking about your own system again here.
Fine with that.
How many people are using it today?
Millions? Not yet?
Thousands? Not yet?
Hundreds? Not yet?
I hereby officially predict how many people will be using your system one, five and ten years from now.
Reply: Zero
Why I say so?
As it is too complicated and too unnecessarily complicated
People will never use it

6)
Please read your proposal again, specifically item 2.1, 4, 9, and 22.
Did you even write this thing?
(by Scott)

-> I also wrote that a political party may not be needed at the beginning

7)
You missed the point: Your death penalty example (#15) has 7 possible
responses. How do you combine votes for each of them to reach a
decision?
(by Scott)

-> You do not
You just take the two responses who got the largest number of votes and have a vote on those two
Simple as that.
Got the word?
Simple

8)
No, but given that mine came before yours you should at least be
familiar with it before spouting off. Clearly you're not.
(by Scott)
-> I started this thread speaking about a proposed system which is not yours and you used the replies in this thread to write the URL of your system quite a few times so far
Fine with that, I am not jealous
Now, let me ask you
Since as you have pointed out you have been here longer than me, please tell me how many governments/organizations are using your software (which is already in beta stage) now.
Or even consider doing it
Is it 1000?
Is it 100?
Is it 10?
Is it 1?
Is it noone?

9)
I submit you have it exactly backwards: At least we're comfortable
with turning control over to the People. Until you get rid of the
screed that makes up the first half of your proposal it appears to be
more about how to manipulate them into achieving the outcomes*you*
specify.
(by Scott)
-> I just stated facts
Plain facts and the reasons why I believe it is important to be engaged with DD
If people do not like facts, this is their problem
Not mine

10)
Says the guy who hasn't invested even a few minutes to understand how
it works...
(by Scott)
-> Slowly but surely you are getting there
I DO NOT want to invest more than 5 minutes to read your proposal as PEOPLE will not spend more than 5 minutes to read your proposal
Why is it so difficult to understand?
People in general are not ego-driven guys who are looking to have the best system in the world
They just need something simple which works
This is why your complicated system will fail
Same as Airesis
Same as Vilfredo
Same as Votorola
Same as LQFB

11)
I think again you're missing the point: The delegation system in LQFB
*didn't* work and therefore was a deal breaker for the adoption of the
system. If a system really does manage to capture The Will of The
People no amount of conflict in the SDAP leadership of the movement
will be able to stop it.
(by Scott)
-> This is your opinion. I respect but disagree with it.
At least we can agree that LQFB failed. As Airesis and as Vilfredo

12)
Matteo this kind of answer really turn me off, because it is not in any way
educate to address other opinion as stupid or criticize someone to promote
their own project.
(by Jacopo)
-> Well, I always prefer to be honest and straightforward than to be false.
We discussed this before with you, I think. And I did not call anyone as stupid here

13) Objection to the statement "how frequently". It is probably not frequent
that someone win the lottery but sure someone do.
(by Jacopo)
-> True
But you do not take a huge loan on the grounds that one day you may win the lottery and pay it off, right?
And exceptions like having two proposals with the exact number of votes can always be handled somehow
Right?

14)
Now let me tell you that if you consider proxyfor.me too complicate i doubt
in your intelligence, so far the proxy vote that the system have given
match my vote so I see it as a promising addendum to a collaborative
proposal making software.
(by Jacopo)
-> Please be welcome and doubt of my intelligence!! :)
Along with the intelligence of 100% of the world population who is not using proxyforme and never will


15) In the same way I see Vilfredo as potential
method for collaborative paragraph editing of a proposal making software.
(by Jacopo)
-> And I see Vilfredo as a total failure.
Nobody is using it.
Nobody is using a system derivative from Vilfredo to govern
The only thing Vilfredo may have been useful for is for Pietro to have his name in some trendy journal article

16) Voting multiple choice is not considered in proxyfor.me so far so the
voting in Airesis can be used where this may be necessary.
There is not a single "way" to address world problem and IMHO there will
never be one, but a network of interlaced and integrated intelligent
methods is the answer.
(by Jacopo)

-> Airesis failed so far and will never be used
Why then even mention it?
Do you remember how many times, when we had those calls at night, I told you airesis was too complicated and would never work?
Do you remember that?
Do you remember when I told this to Alessandro and he replied to me that there were thousands of users and hundreds of organizations working on Airesis so far?
Where are they now?
I first told Nicola giulietti they had to make a simple system back in 2011
He did not listen to me
you did nor listen
You failed
Are not you unhappy to have spent so much money and time and then got out with nothing?

[Scott Raney]

The newsletter system is not, IMHO, the best system to work with as it is
quite difficult to quote someone in a clear and easy way

That's a problem with your mail program, not email lists in general.
Most email programs, including gmail and all popular UNIX mail
programs, do quotes as above (with > signs, one per level of quoting).

This said, I will reply in one mail to criticisms by both Jacopo and Scott

Yeah, that's a bad idea too: You should respond to messages as they
come in to properly record the context.

=> My statements are factual and you can check any of them in Wikipedia.
I have no agenda reigning in anyone. I just stated facts.

And if I claim that you're an idiot that doesn't have any idea what
you're doing, that may be a fact too but it certainly doesn't advance
the case of any of us understanding exactly how and why you fail to
understand why your proposal is generating this response, nor help us
decide what to do about it. Your agenda is revealed by the examples
you provide, which aren't examples of the failure of government
decisionmaking, but rather failures of SDAP personalities in
decisionmaking positions. And then you fail to even deal with that
issue by creating a party and and a new "elite" that will apparently
be responsible for the actual decisionmaking because The People can't
be bothered to spend 5 minutes researching an issue before voting on
it.

=> I criticized the proposals for one single reason
they failed

That is not a criticism, that's merely a statement of your opinion. A
valid criticism would include an analysis of *why* they failed.

-> Thank you for the favour, but let me ask you..
If you know the flaws of the systems well, why have not you promoted a
successful direct democracy system so far?

Umm, I'm working on it: proxyfor.me was just recently released for
beta test and as yet has no marketing plan. I also haven't finished
the open-source release yet which is something I need to get done
before I can actually promote it as an open source project which is I
consider to be an essential feature of any new public policy
decisionmaking system.

-> I am looking for marginally better improvements.

And yet you've proposed nothing that is even marginally better than
anything that has come before, nor even demonstrated that you
understand *why* any of the other systems "failed" (as you call it).
Just a few data points to put the timeframe of adoption process of
things like this in perspective:
It was 60 years between the publication of the "Communist Manifesto"
and the Bolshevik revolution
The number of Christians didn't break 10000 until over a hundred years
after Jesus died
The American Colonies were established (and immediately began feuding
with the Brits) 170 years before the American Revolution

I.e., it's way too early to call any of the projects you cite as failures...

6)
Please read your proposal again, specifically item 2.1, 4, 9, and 22.
Did you even write this thing?
(by Scott)
-> I also wrote that a political party may not be needed at the beginning

OK, so your proposal is just confusing and internally inconsistent, not wrong.

-> Slowly but surely you are getting there
I DO NOT want to invest more than 5 minutes to read your proposal as PEOPLE
will not spend more than 5 minutes to read your proposal

Lord help us if they're all as thick-headed and superficial as you,
but fortunately proxyfor.me will work to provide good representation
even if 99.99% of the population turns out to be this way. How does
your system provide this?

11)
I think again you're missing the point: The delegation system in LQFB
*didn't* work and therefore was a deal breaker for the adoption of the
system. If a system really does manage to capture The Will of The
People no amount of conflict in the SDAP leadership of the movement
will be able to stop it.
(by Scott)
-> This is your opinion. I respect but disagree with it.

It's not an opinion that the LQFB delegation system didn't work, it's
a fact (read the paper). And your delegation system works exactly the
same way: Why won't it fail in exactly the same way?
Regards,
Scott

[Matteo Martini]

Hi Scott

And if I claim that you're an idiot that doesn't have any idea what
you're doing, that may be a fact too but it certainly doesn't advance
the case of any of us understanding exactly how and why you fail to
understand why your proposal is generating this response, nor help us
decide what to do about it.

-> I see we are rapidly advancing to the point of insulting each other
I have no interest in taking part to this discussion
Airesis failed as noone is using it today
No government, no major institution
If the goal of a platform is to be used for DD and it is not being used, this is a failure
If you think that Airesis, or proxyforme will be successful in 60 years, good luck with it.
People with problems today need solutions today, not in 60 years
In 60 years or more you will not be here probably nor me
I have now memorized your mail in my agenda
If we will both be here in 2018, I will write you on the 1st of July 2018 a mail
In this mail there will be a question, the question is "why no major institution is using your software"?
You will then claim that the people were bad, the governments were bad, etc etc.
Like every other person does as they do not want to understand why they are failing.
Remember my words.
I have said the same words to Nicola Giulietti in 2011, to Ed and to everybody else
They wasted time and money for nothing
Look at where is Votorola today: http://reluk.ca/project/votorola/genealogy.xht
Look at where is Airesis today
Ask Jacopo Tolja how many times I have told him they were on the wrong path
They did not listen and they had to close the project after having invested years or work and tens of thousands of $
How sad.
And now some of them is blaming the evil govenrment who is allegedly boycotting the project
How sad..
I believe there WILL be soon a DD system that will be widely used, as soon as some one does not daydream like you and the rest of the people
And creates something useful and easy

After that, I have nothing else to say
After all, the time you are wasting is only yours
You are living in the zone, my friend..
Just do not become sad or angry against the world when you will see that your project has failed

[Scott Raney]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Matteo Martini <***@teo72.com> wrote:

(snip, all the negativity is no help to anyone at all)

Post by Matteo Martini
In this mail there will be a question, the question is "why no major
institution is using your software"?

It is worth calling out this assumption as another fatal problem with
your proposal (not that I expect you to respond: You've not addressed
any of the other criticisms with the exception of calling for doubling
the workload when a multiple-choice option is desired):

If you expect any existing organization to adopt your alternative,
especially if that alternative *reduces* their power, you're
delusional. Any new system either stands alone or it will never be
more than a curiosity that will be forcefully shut down just as soon
as it gains any traction. Granted this makes the marketing problem
harder (you have to basically market "revolution" as a product, which
is a hard sell, especially to conservatives) and exposes us to the
risk of a messy transition (many states that already teeter on the
edge of totalitarianism will have to go there first). But if The
People want power, they're going to have to take it, not just beg the
existing power structure to voluntarily release it to them.
Regards,
Scott

[Scott Raney]

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Matteo Martini <***@teo72.com> wrote:

He's baaaack!

Post by Scott Raney
If you expect any existing organization to adopt your alternative,
especially if that alternative *reduces* their power, you're
delusional. Any new system either stands alone or it will never be
more than a curiosity that will be forcefully shut down just as soon
as it gains any traction. Gr
-> You are yet another one (along with Jacopo and others) of the ones who
think that DD systems fail because of the NWO conspiracy + illuminati?

Not at all: They fail because they're way too much work. I also don't
believe in NWO/Illuminati/Deep State conspiracies, but I do understand
why people might be confused into thinking that those exist:
Oligarchies *do* exist, as do SDAP behavior patterns. They *are* the
ones with the real power in our societies and so dealing with this
issue has got to be a key component of any proposed new system. DD is
ideally suited solving these problem, though, so as long as we can
build one that doesn't require everyone to spend hours every day doing
public policy, all we really have to do is avoid the pitfalls (like
designing a system that relies on SDAP leadership voluntarily giving
up power).

Post by Scott Raney
Weeew..
We are getting into nuts territory here
I bow out
Bye

I look forward to debating again when you've plugged some of the holes
in your proposal...
Regards,
Scott