Post by Jacopo ToljaI submit a mix of platform, and pass the semifinal but I still have very
large doubt it can go further up.
I even mention in my proposal proxyforme!
As well as claiming to be able to integrate several other projects.
Pretty ambitious ;-)
But I'm kind of surprised they didn't just disqualify you for
providing identifying information: I had to work pretty hard to scrub
my entry of this kind of thing (e.g., not being able to cite the
Matchism Manifesto or link to the papers on that site was a major
hurdle). The "enumerati" entry cited several on-line sources which is
something I scrupulously avoid doing (they're not refereed journals,
many of them have advertising that could be problematic, and sites
like those disappear or get reorganized frequently which leads to
broken links).
Post by Jacopo ToljaAttached for your review.
I spotted few error, please be considerate i learn English on my own.
It's no problem: The meaning is clear and I'd guess that the GCF saw a
lot entries with less than perfect English and so has had to make
accommodation for that (indeed most of the judges seem to be
non-native English speakers and so in many cases probably didn't even
notice the awkward patterns in these entries). Keep in mind that I'm
always happy to take a look at things like this and provide feedback
and/or editing.
My take on yours:
1) I go back and forth on using FB, G+, etc. credentials for login. It
does speed the early adoption process, but IMHO also taints even your
early results because everyone knows people with multiple accounts,
fake names, etc. and they should not be reminded of this *every time*
they use the system. It's also going to be a nightmare to add
independent authentication later (someone will have to manually go in
and approve each transition to an internal authentication system). I'm
still of the opinion that the way proxyfor.me works is the best: A
pseudonym is used, but it exists independently of the name used
elsewhere. Not only does this make adding true authentication later on
straightforward, it also affords people the option of true anonymity
if they decide to enforce this (by not sharing their screen name
outside the platform). In fact I'm working on an automatic generation
system for the names to even more firmly push for keeping your
proxyfor.me name separate from the names you use on social media
platforms.
2) Ooops, you used the blockchain buzzword ;-)
3) It doesn't seem to meet the "guaranteed decision" criteria. Both
proxyfor.me (which I called MPADD (Matched Proxy Augmented Direct
Democracy) in my entry) and the enumerati entry do meet this
requirement.
4) I don't see the path from local to global adoption and effect, and
you even explicitly state that your system cannot overcome
obstructionism from existing government officials. But wasn't this
path the *core* of what the competition was about?
Regards,
Scott
Post by Jacopo ToljaKind Regards to you all
Jacopo
Post by Scott RaneyPost by Patrick MillerdThis competition has moved on to the semi-finals. Not sure how many of us
entered but my entry was not selected.
Mine either...
Post by Patrick MillerdI'm interested in reading some of the ones that were selected.
Me too although I expect that I'm going to find them very
disappointing based on who the judges are: Given that they're all
"work within the system" types their preferences are going to be far
too conservative and none of them are likely to have a
social-engineering perspective on things.
Post by Patrick MillerdApparently, they will be posted at some point.
Someone from a facebook group I was in was selected, here is his entry
https://magwas.gitbooks.io/enumerati/content/en/
It's well done (albeit with too many typos and awkward phrasings, but
neither I nor the judges would be likely to hold that against them),
and I really like the way they've used the Gitbooks platform.
Post by Patrick MillerdHaven't fully examined it yet but figured might be something worth
discussing.
1) The deal breaker: Voluntary delegation with no assist in even
identifying appropriate proxies. We've already seen how that doesn't
work (both in the LQFB system and in the Google liquid voting system).
2) No correction for SDAPs and their much higher interest in being
"representatives" (i.e., the people who will end up running things are
the same people we have now).
3) I don't think I follow the required 1% "membership" fee. 1% of
average income should be more than enough to run the government itself
but does that mean that to join the "parks" group I've got to pony up
$300 (1% of the average income in the US)? If I don't come up with the
$300 I don't get to vote on anything?
4) The voting system is underspecified. Voting seems to be open (no
secret ballot), but there is no mention of this or who and how they do
the counts or the authentication.
All in all it seems to me to be no improvement over what we have now
other than sort of implying that the international level is a
representative democracy that works the same as all lower levels.
Oh well, at least it's not based on blockchain ;-)
Regards,
Scott
Post by Patrick MillerdCheers Y'all
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org