Source
r/americanpirateparty•
TopherT

What we need is a meta-policy.

What we need is a meta-policy. An organization which sets us up to succeed. An organization which is as a-political as possible. Any time you build an organization you end up getting the same people leading; self promoters, corrupt rent seekers, in a word, politicians. Reddit has shown that the right kind of banner can draw varied, smart and interesting people, but as soon as there is anything to fight over, the demagogues step in. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy )

We need good way to decide what to decide on the issues. We need to set up a system of decision making that is empirical, that is incorruptible, a system which will lead to the outcomes by bootstrapping the collective intelligence of redditors.

edit: If there are any web developers out there who are interested in facilitating the organizing of the party, I think bobcobb42 has some great structural ideas.

edit: Also, reading material for anyone who wants to debate the way votes will be cast/counted on ideas or leaders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_systems

Posted Jan 20, 2010, 8:56 PM UTC · edited

10586
bobcobb42•

Aha, someone beat me to it! I have been mulling over this idea for awhile now. It needs to be more than a simple upvoting/downvoting system ala reddit. I am working in Machine Learning/social networks research, and there are many mechanisms we can use that will make this a political party unlike any other. Here are some ideas that will work well with the idea of a collective consensus.

Adaptive Party Platform: Current political parties can only change their platform during conventions. The platform is decided by a select few and there are generally very few changes made to the status quo. We need a platform that is not simply decided by a handful of people on reddit, but that represents the collective consensus of the party. In order to do so, each person must declare their position on any number of issues they are passionate about. An algorithm can be developed to determine the socially optimal policy from these 'votes'. However this raises the issue of collusion/dummy accounts. We can weight each persons vote by their reputation.

Reputation System: We must implement a reputation system that allows people to rise the ranks of the party but also keeps out the riffraff, power hungry maniacs, and dummy accounts. This is a well studied problem and there are a number of solutions already available and in use in e-commerce beta reputation. Reputation can be rated in both online/offline form. For instance if there is a local APP meetup, those that attend and work a lit drop for instance can be rated as reliable online. This will also motivate people to actually get out and work for the party, rather than sitting at home and posting all day long.

Social Rewards: Another tool to motivate people to work for the party actively is social rewards, in the form of badges similar to stackoverflow. Reddit also has a similar system, although less visible. These are a good way to help motivate and reinforce positive behavior both in the forums and offline during meetings and campaigning.

I believe the need to reinforce policy issues with empirical data is a must. Policies should be rational. If an issue is only marginally supported one way or another and either side lacks empirical backing, we cannot support that issue as a party. The good thing about collective consensus is that it allows us to recognize what issues we agree most strongly with one another, and compromise on the issues we do not in a manner that maximizes the utility of society.

34
Picklebiscuits•

So when will the website be up? I think by far you have the best organizing view point to date. I also think that we should set up a list of issues, and then debate both sides. We can then vote on the issue. I have some pretty radical ideas that makes a lot of sense on some issues, yet some people may have never been exposed to the my side of things. Thus by debating them, I can ensure that people are informed about both sides before voting. I can also play either side of almost any issue, so we can get a fair viewpoint both ways.

12
bobcobb42•

As soon as possible. We can use the existing blog as a starting point. The first step is design of the various components, and then implementation. The design of the system itself could be accomplished through reddit or perhaps a wiki. Then we move that to an open source repository where we begin developing the actual system. The more people we have the quicker we can get this implemented.

I think we should have a way to have informal debates within the forum, and formal debates can be sponsored as well. A debate system is something that should develop organically, we probably shouldn't try to force anything.

2
[deleted]•

As soon as possible. We can use the existing blog as a starting point.

Which existing blog?

1
JasonHears•

The Adaptive Party Platform is something that I think is key here. Our current political parties are still stuck on the idea that the person that gets elected acts as a representative to the people who voted for him/her. They use their beliefs in what they think is best for the people, or how they think the people would want him/her to vote, in deciding how to vote.

While every APP politician should have this clarity of judgment and intellect to do this, they need to have the understanding that as OUR representative, they need to vote how WE tell them to vote. And we need a system that is clear how we are voting.

Also, if we have any APP politicians that decide to go "rogue", we can easily see that.

6
crusoe•

A Reputation system leads to factionalism, and with that, we're back to factions, which can set the party platform making it different than what the majority want.

3
uspatentspending•

This is definitely important and any design instituted needs to resist factionalism. It also needs to resist demagogues. If you focus too much on reputation you stifle innovation and you lose your adaptivity.

1
bobcobb42•

That's a good point. The discourse, debate, and 'collective consensus' algorithm all give any budding APP politician a method to check his/her position against the parties position. Further we can actually view how their votes line up with the platform and even perhaps develop a measure of how faithful they are to the adaptive party platform.

1
Vithar•

I think a reddit model could work for the Adaptive Party Platform. The other parts are trickier, but I think you are onto something good.

1
bobcobb42•

Reddit is a model to start from. However we need something geared towards encouraging political activism both online and offline, i.e. More complex Reddit merged with Meetup features merged with Stackoverflow features.. A voting system and basic user profile/reputation is a good starting point.

2
TopherTOP•

Brilliant. I love it. I'm actually looking into doing my grad degree in this kind of stuff.

I would add two things to your idea;

First I would say that empiricism, while it is an incredibly underutilized tool in organizing societies, is not going to be useful for the function of establishing what values policies are trying to maximize. Some sort of general principles must eventually be derived from the party members. Also, how can we make sure the empirical data will override specious arguments?

Secondly I would ask that we think about some way of gearing the system to improve itself over time without corrupting the essence of what we're trying to do. If a political party grows and is successful, the systems we have to deliver the best memes have to scale up or evolve in such a way as to keep the essence of our goals here alive.

edit: God that sounded really pompous

4
bobcobb42•

First I would say that empiricism, while it is an incredibly underutilized tool in organizing societies, is not going to be useful for the function of establishing what values policies are trying to maximize. Some sort of general principles must eventually be derived from the party members. Also, how can we make sure the empirical data will override specious arguments?

I think we should let the value system emerge from the collective opinion on issues. Machines are good for calculating the optimal configuration in some n-dimensional space. They are not so good at interpreting the subjective meaning of that data. Over a period of time it should become clear what the essential planks of the party will be, issues that will unlikely change with an influx of new members. For instance consider the issue of Instant Runoff Voting. It is unlikely there will be a significant outcry against it.

I think another important point is that the system would hopefully illustrate issues that people from any part of the political spectrum really come together on. These are the issues those who run under the platform should focus on.

Secondly I would ask that we think about some way of gearing the system to improve itself over time without corrupting the essence of what we're trying to do. If a political party grows and is successful, the systems we have to deliver the best memes have to scale up or evolve in such a way as to keep the essence of our goals here alive.

I agree. Designing the system to evolve over time in it's conception is not easy. More than likely this evolution will be motivated primarily by deficiencies that we can only realize once the prototype is up and running.

2
sockpuppetzero•

For instance consider the issue of Instant Runoff Voting. It is unlikely there will be a significant outcry against it.

I am very much against IRV.

1
bobcobb42•

Are you for Borda count? No method is perfect, however we have to pick one of them. However this is exactly the kind of contribution we need to implement a good platform.

2
usuallyskeptical•

You truly are the Maestro. You've earned this nickname.

3
[deleted]•

Your ideas are incredibly well thought out, and I thank you for that. I especially like the ideas about reputation and positively encouraging good behavior and activism. However, I'm hung up on how you plan to execute the adaptive party platform thing. Would the party members need to declare their stands on any/all issues on some sort of registration (or profile)? I like the idea, but problems may arise in terms of clarifying the party's platform, especially in its infancy. Also, just to clarify: would the algorithm be perpetual, or would we solidify some parts of the platform in order to maintain the party's integrity in the long term?

Just one last question: How does one develop an algorithm to determine "social optimum" without first having a platform describing what the party believes is socially optimal?

2
bobcobb42•

Would the party members need to declare their stands on any/all issues on some sort of registration (or profile)?

Yes. Until we can develop NLP methods of analyzing posts/debates, people would have to declare their positions over certain issues. What is good about this is that people do not have to declare their decisions on every issue, only the ones they are most passionate about. I believe that we could have an emergent system in which people generate 'Positions', then place them on a 2 dimensional political spectrum. In this manner the issue's location on the political spectrum is also collectively determined. Then people simply jump on the position that they like, and in this manner the system can calculate the optimal position in the political spectrum for each position. In a sense this is the 'best' compromise of all the existing positions.

I like the idea, but problems may arise in terms of clarifying the party's platform, especially in its infancy.

The cold start problem exists for any such collectively intelligent system. Luckily with enough savvy reddit users who can help with the beta we should have something functional, and the platform can evolve from that point.

Also, just to clarify: would the algorithm be perpetual, or would we solidify some parts of the platform in order to maintain the party's integrity in the long term?

I believe the algorithm must have inertia. But I also believe the fact that it is adaptive over the long term is what gives it power. I think this is an issue that will need much discussion in the design of the system. How much inertia should be implemented in the existing platform, when the platform should switch from one issue to another, etc. The political spectrum is continuous, but issues are usually discrete entities. So change is necessary, but there needs to be something a good way to determine when the consensus will jump from one 'discrete' issue to another 'discrete' issue. Further discussion is necessary for this issue.

Just one last question: How does one develop an algorithm to determine "social optimum" without first having a platform describing what the party believes is socially optimal?

That's one that we can't solve yet. It will largely be subjective based on the opinions of the user's involved in the debate. We can determine what is 'socially optimal' in the sense that the platform maximally satisfies the maximum amount of users. However we cannot define utility outside of the system itself. It might be possible to include an evidence system, where users can attached evidence/empirical research to issues. However it will be difficult to use Machine Learning to analyze such evidence. We must rely on the collective voting system, the machine simply calculates 'The Great Compromise', something that humans simply cannot do. At least in recent memory.

edit: some grammar failures

2
Omnicrola•

Might I suggest that any such prototyping for the mentioned "collectively intelligent system" be run using non critical or controversial ideas, so as to prevent the participants from entering the live system with preconceived notions of the group consensus based on erroneously interpreted data?

(holy crap that sounded really wordy. Uhm.... boobies!)

1
bearfury•

upvoting/downvoting, sorted by best.

20
Technohazard•

Two problems... Bots, and Ochlocracy.

3
colechristensen•

"incorruptible" is unacievable idealism but still should remain the goal.

Less tolerant of corruption is the way to go.

6
doctor_house_md•

A simpler way to put it is: can the Mint Party* construct a 4chan proof system, so that for example we don't vote pedophilia into law. One solution might be successfully transferring 0.01 cent via paypal to a public meta-paypal account. This would verify the user, because creating and funding a paypal account requires real life credentials. A programmer could consider it a 1 cent oAuth.

*Mint Party being my name suggestion - a fresh start!

6
kamatsu•

Or just require like a $10 campaign contribution before you can make decisions.

2
dician•

I don't like this. It feels Scientologistic. The idea of using paypal to authenticate people, but it shouldn't be any significant amount of money. Of course, if you want to donate to be verified, that would be awesome.

2
doctor_house_md•

Yes this is more the way I meant it, the emphasis being on the authentication not on the amount, which is why it just needs to be a penny. This could be a way to address the issue of people creating multiple fake accounts.

1
crusoe•

But then you are letting money set the policy. What about the poor or homeless, are they allowed no say then if they wish to join?

1
JasonHears•

I think reddit is a good basis for what you're describing. At least as a point to start discussion from. What reddit lacks is the guarantee of "one person, one vote". I can create multiple dummy accounts and vote on something here. On the site we build (and I'm assuming we will need to build a party website), we need to try our best to guarantee nobody can create multiple accounts to vote with.

4
TopherTOP•

A very difficult endeavor. One option is to give traceable real information about your identity to a central server, I don't like this option. Annother is to have physical meet-ups around the country, I like this much better because not only does it limit the ability to have undue influence, it removes the people who aren't serious about the idea. That could be a problem, however, as the entire idea is to have as broad a representation of our community as possible. Perhaps the baconbits strategy of hosting a site which only admits people with a certain length of time in reddit and a certain comment karma in. There is potential for abuse there but not so much as without those controls.

edit: perhaps it would be possible to do both.

3
bobcobb42•

Neither idea is best actually, although enforcing real credentials is useful it is not easy to implement. Online reputation systems are a well studied problem, and we should start this party by looking at the vast amounts of empirical research available.

For instance there are reputation systems such as the beta reputation system that have a proven record. We could adapt one of these existing algorithms for the political nature of our problem.

2
CharlieBlix•

My vote is for meet-ups and for the people outside of major cities we could have virtual meetings. Maybe a web-cam based vote or something along those lines.

Another idea would be to have votes take place for these virtual meetings in something like the dreaded 2nd life. I've only been there once but I imagine it would be a little harder for someone to have a variety of avatars in a room at once.

1
TopherTOP•

I'm in the South Bay Area, I'll go 40 miles or so, not much further. I can also host at my place, probably accommodate 20-30 people. Maybe a channel for party meet ups to organize?

1
[deleted]•

couchsurfing does verification by having you reply to a physical letter they send to an address you supply

1
shadowblade•

To avoid making people enter personal info to the website, have them download an [open-source] application which gets a unique time based key from the server and hashes it together with drivers license info. I'm fairly certain most states have a web application to tell whether ID numbers are valid. Also, if they're a registered voter, you can enter a driver's license number (only verified for my state, Michigan) and get the voter's polling location, so if you can check if their entered address is in the correct region for that polling location.

In short:

-user downloads open source application

-application requests time based unique id (uid) from server

-user enters driver's license info into application

-using driver's license number, the person's polling location is checked to see if their address lies in that polling location's region

-all data is hashed together to create a unique id which the user enters into the website with the original time-based unique id they were issued

This has the added bonus of making sure members are registered voters, helping to ensure they're actually active.

Thoughts?

2
erkokite•

Way overcomplicated. Way too intrusive.

1
shadowblade•

No, it's not intrusive at all. The driver's license info is hashed locally, on the user's machine. The number is submitted anonymously to a state-owned website.

EDIT: Granted, it is certainly overcomplicated.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

3
crusoe•

What we need is a Culture.

  1. We should retain some irreverance, from our "Pirate Roots". Perhaps a requirement to celebrate "Talk like a Pirate Day". When a congressman has to talk like a pirate, like everyone else, he can't get a big head.

  2. We should foster a culture where elected officials from our party are reminded that they were elected by us, through our hard work. Like in Rome, where a slave whispered in the ear of the triumpant general "Momento Mori" or more likely "Respice post te! Hominem te memento!" ( Look behind you, you are but a man".

3
Omnicrola•

When a congressman has to talk like a pirate, like everyone else, he can't get a big head.

I fully endorse this policy.

1
dician•

perhaps incorporating some sort of mind-changing into a voting system: you can change your vote as many times as you like, but each subsequent vote is counted as a "secondary" vote. If you make a secondary vote, you have to supply your thought process for doing so. This way, it becomes possible to track discussion points and address the issues that matter in a given discussion.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

6
dician•

Good point. The reason I put in the part about a "secondary" vote was to keep track of how many people changed their mind, and how many times they did so. The idea isn't to reduce the power of a changed vote, only to keep snapshots of the polling over time. The current count of a vote, for instance, changes real-time based on votechanging. Markers are kept, however, for when, why, and how often votes change. That information (which could very easily remain anonymous) then helps direct further discussion.

2
quentusrex•

It's a good idea. But you don't want to put a price on the actual changing of the vote. Make it an option. Make it possible.

Just record that the vote was changed, what from and what do, with the option of a why, plus a who. Then with this data you can figure out about your community.

2
JasonHears•

I like the idea of being able to change your vote. Not so much about having to justify the reasoning. Two points I'd make:

  1. There has to be some kind of deadline when voting on an issue. You can change your mind all the way up until the deadline.

  2. Tracking how somebody votes brings up the issue of keeping voting secret. If you track how they vote, there is a way to tie that vote in to a specific person.

2
deadA1ias•

Why is there a problem with vote tracking? Isn't that in the spirit of openess? This is already done in many operating parliaments around the world.

2
JasonHears•

True. The reason for secret balloting is to protect people from feeling pressure to vote one way for fear that if they vote a different way, they would face repercussions from someone. But if we approach it like voting in the legislature, then yes, tracking who voted what way is ok.

2
deadA1ias•

Actually, you're right. One of the biggest problems with the current parliament in the UK (this is my only reference), is the "whip". People voting just because that's the way they've been told to vote... anonymous voting would remove this issue. Maybe tracking your own voting record (i.e. recording the who voted for what), but making it public would be the middle ground.

3
Vivtek•

It's also to keep people from selling their votes.

1
[deleted]•

One way to keep corruption out is to separate the politicians from the party leadership.

2
RogerDavidson•

I think the first principle of the party should be that open and free debate is the key to good policy decisions. This is about a-political as it gets and it ties into support for net neutrality and a multi-party system.

2
TopherTOP•

Ok, but how do we organize the forum to ensure the debate is free and open? JasonHears bring up a good point about multiple dummy accounts.

1
bobcobb42•

Multiple dummy accounts can be alleviated with a reputation system. If we are going to generate policy online, which I believe it necessary to break the mold of the ol' unelectable third party, it will be necessary to implement one.

I am willing to put in the coding/design help. I think we have plenty of programmers that are more than capable. We just need an open source project for the site/forum/collective intelligence design. I think an open source approach would go hand in hand with the party's ideology of freedom and transparency.

1
famousmodification•

An open source project wouldn't be terribly hard to create, either. See if you can find/form a group dedicated to coding it, and make sure to provide a summary of what you're working towards that is easily understood by anyone who wants to check in on your progress. That way, if anyone feels like you're way off base, they can let you know. And most of all, make sure that you aren't working in parallel with other, identical groups. There's a finite number of us and we need to spend our effort efficiently.

(Sorry if that came off pompous sounding... I think you have a great idea and should discuss it with people who are competent to discuss details with you)

1
bobcobb42•

No any positive contribution is welcome. I am in contact with someone willing to host the website, so I believe the next step is setting up some version control and tomorrow some code perhaps.

1
crusoe•

Reputation systems are subject to "Cult of Personality" issues. Look at Digg, or Rush Limbaugh. One crazy enough person with a vocal enough base could change the party platform.

1
bobcobb42•

I think this is a general problem with society more than an issue specifically with reputation systems. It's a hard issue to address though, but I believe we can ensure that there is not significant swings in platform caused by groups that are isolated from the rest of the population. I believe that making offline reputation more important and making distinctions between local/state/federal politics would partly solve this problem.

1
Technohazard•

The most important issue is ACCOUNTABILITY.

Politicians, and the parties of their affiliation, are supposed to represent the will of the people they are elected by. At the same time, they must balance out the mob-mentality of their constituency with their (theoretically) superior knowledge and ability to make the decision that will benefit society the most.

How do we give politicians the freedom to make informed decisions, but still keep them accountable to the people they represent?

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
aristotle2600•

I see alot of discussion that sounds like how to implement democracy on the Internet, but I don't think that's what this post is about, or at least, not what it should be about.

What we need is an overarching policy, a platform if you will, that leads necessarily and logically to all our other positions. Then, when new issues arise, we use this meta-policy to make a decision on how to update the complete platform. If there is ever a contradiction, we "appeal" to the meta-policy.

So, what should this meta-policy be? I say that it should be some formalization of "You're right to swing your fist is absolute, until it hits my nose." We probably need to add to this something about unity, and social good, but these are just beginning ideas.

And yes, I know that libertards will call me a hypocrite for daring to imply that taking their hard-earned tax money so disadvantaged children have food is punching them in the nose. I propose we make them walk the plank.

1
TopherTOP•

Well, its sounds like you're talking about an ideology. A guiding principle that we can test our policy ideas against. Now there are issues with ideology as a platform. Its true that it does work well as a way to motivate people intellectually and as a way to think about ourselves in relation to others, but as most parties have shown it must often be put behind pragmatism; both in order to obtain power as well as to govern well.

My own thinking goes along the lines of setting up a system of voting for values. (I'm not sure how to implement or choose the values, as any list would end up with unnatural framing) Then have some sort of think tank brainstorm ideas for policies which balanced these values, some sort of independent, a-political vetting process which looks at the policy ideas with an emprical/historical eye, makes formal ratings of the policies and then passes on the policies which are non-contradictory and hang together logically or thematically for voting by the larger party body.

This is just an idea, I would love to hear more about peoples ideas about how to implement rational systems, especially with an ear to having the system improve itself over time.

1
aristotle2600•

Maybe I am. But I think having an ideology to point to is a good thing. It sure solves the "What do you stand for?" question. It also cuts down on contradictory positions. And, I don't think it will be quite as difficult as you seem to think. The swinging/nose example is, IMHO, a good start that we can all agree on. What's wrong with enshrining in officiality?

A note on pragmatism. People don't want to hear about pragmatism. Pragmatism is not an ideal, it's a principle to satisfy the most ideals possible. But that's beside the point. I have noticed that sometimes, "pragmatism" conceals more fundamental issues. To use that as an excuse to abandon those fundamental ideals flies in the face of what this party (I think) is going to stand for. Applying pragmatism an actual ideal and driving force could give rise to the line of reasoning "Hey, we'd like to help 3rd-world countries, but you know, it's really expensive, so we're just not gonna." I know we can't promise every starving child in the world 3 squares a day, but that is no reason to even say that we have to be pragmatic, because that's just a euphemism for "I care, just not that much."

tl;dr: To claim pragmatism is to abandon our ideals before they are even challenged. See also "kittens in blenders"

1
TopherTOP•

Hmmm.. you're right of course, pragmatism is really just appealing to other values when your own don't fit. I guess I think that most fundamental ideals aren't really fundamental. They are often misapplied to situations that call for empirical rather than axiomatic thinking.

Ideology, I've found, leads people into arguments which cannot be solved. We've all gotten in to them. You and this person are at odds, you can't get anywhere from where you are. What if instead of trying to sync these idea structures, memeplexes, ideologies together, you establish what values you want to maximize, and then try to figure out the best policies for making those values real?

Yeah, its a weird idea, the adversarial view of politics is so ingrained in us, maybe humans just don't work that way.

1
aristotle2600•

As far as ideology, I'm going for as fundamental as possible. The idea is to go so deep that if you disagree, that pretty much makes you a bad person, and debating is moot, because at this level, you would have to change a person's personality to change their mind. Implementing the ideals is a different matter, and subject to debate, disagreement, even compromise and pragmatism. My proposed ideology:

  • Any person should have the freedom to do anything he sees fit, and for any reason he sees fit, or for no reason, until something he does infringes on someone else's rights. For an infringement to be actionable, the right infringed must be A) significant, and B) of comparable or superior importance to the right being exercised by the transgressor.
  • The function of government is to safeguard liberties against infringement by nature, other people, or circumstance, within reason.
  • These principles apply to all people, not merely citizens, and not merely the ones the government likes.
1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

I am wondering if we should also have stances of reform of the current prison system and the way food production is carried out in this country? I think that these issues should be adhered to and are very problematic in our current society. Anybody have any extensive research on these matters?

EDIT: GRAMMAR

1
TopherTOP•

I think a new party starting out, if it is going to be about issues, has to be as close to a single issue party as possible. Otherwise a lot of the energy is going to be directed at bickering about issues instead of growing the party.

Personally I'd rather reddit's party be about experimentation and finding what works than re-hashing the political arguments of the last century.

1
[deleted]•

Yeah, I see where you are coming from and it makes perfect sense. Thinking about this in the long term too much.

1
Vivtek•

Yes, but some statements of principle have natural consequences in specific policy. For instance, the elimination of consensual crime would nearly empty America's prisons. So reform is basically an inevitable consequence in this case.

1
wote89•

Personally, I think the best approach may be to simply try and establish a culture that in antithetical to demagoguery. (I know, I know. Bear with me.) The simple fact is that any sort of organization is going to become political, but we can control how that political system is shaped. For example, if we encourage a culture of skepticism and education in the party, then that makes it more likely that you'd stick to the facts at lot more closely, especially if you know that people are chomping at the bit to deliver a "you are wrong because..." rant.

Granted, that would also have problems, (I would guess that it would bias toward the status quo) but I think it serves as an example of how you can reduce the amount of manipulation the system can have without building another manipulatable system on top of it.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
aznpwnzor•

NO MORE CORRUPTION AND MORE EFFICIENCY.

That's what all third parties accomplish. We're like how jedi are supposed to be like, restoring the balance of Madison's ideals. We apply pressure to force real change, then vanish back into the shadows so we can have healthy opposition debate, instead of becoming a dominant moderate party that tries to compromise issues that are rarely related to each other.

1
[deleted]•

Part of this meta policy needs to prevent memes from taking over rationality.

We need a way to recognize contentious issues and break them down into logic.

Organizations cannot be experts.

Any appeal to authority as supposed evidence or justification for a belief is worthless.

An appeal to expertise of a specific person is debateable on the merits of the person and area of expertise.

The primary people we are looking out for are the poorest people of society. Not just in America, but everywhere.

Having its roots in Reddit we will have to be especially hard on the lookout of demagoguery.

1
thingamagizmo•

How about Google Wave? It may be pretty useless at most things, but it's fantastic for discussion at this stage of the process. Most importantly it allows for voting which can change at any minute, allowing the participants to see everyone's veiws at any point in time on a certain issue.

The only thing that worries me about Google Wave is the speed, but I think it might be worth it at this point.

1