Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Disruptive behaviour (was Re: Grundkonsens: Nicht werten, vernetzen)

[Scott Raney <scott AT metacard.com>]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:17 PM,  <pa.rei AT gmx.de> wrote:

> I'm sorry, Scott, but I think this goes too far. Firstly, please don't talk 
> about Wolfgang without directly including him into the discussion, I 
> believe this might be unfair.

I of course don't know anything about "Wolfgang" other than what was
in that previous message (which I assume you would also consider to be
unfair).  I therefore intend no insult to him, or anyone, but merely
intend to flag the behavior as exactly the kind of thing these direct
democracy systems *must* be able to handle easily.

> Secondly, I read The Plan. Believe me, Wolfgang is no "Authoritarian", and 
> it may be difficult to judge about somebody without knowing him.

Again, I have only the most superficial of information on whether
Wolfgang is an authoritarian, nor does it matter: My point is that the
decision-making system itself has to deal with this kind of behavior
in a *structural* manner so that people don't have to resort to
complaining about it on mailing lists like this one ;-)

> I wasn't there at Tuesday and I don't agree with Wolfgang in all points. 
> I'd also like the qKonsens to be at tbe same level as the other platforms. 
> But he is an important member of our team with important ideas. Who doesn't 
> think the own ideas have the biggest potential? That's the same for 
> qKonsens, The Plan, Multilectics, and any other idea.
>

The difference of course is the tactics one uses to prove it:
Disrupting a vote because it was held in a system that doesn't
facilitate "consensus" ought to be roundly condemned.  Arguing the
validity of "consensus" as a design goal in a decision-making system,
on the other hand, ought to be encouraged and all the relevant
scientific information on the issue brought to light.  At which point
I'm sure the majority will conclude that is not a viable goal and that
we can safely exclude any system that claims to provide it from the
competition.

> Of couse, it's not okay to interrupt people etc. So, please let us talk 
> about persons' behaviour and mainly their ideas but not about their person 
> itself - the risk to misinterpret is too high. You talk with sane humans... 
> I hope I expressed what I wanted to say. Don't take it personally but let's 
> talk together and not about each other.
>

Problem is, I believe your claim that we're always talking with "sane
humans" is an unreasonable assumption, even on a relatively elite
mailing list like this one (and the metagovernment list).  There will
be disruptive influences in *any* group working to solve any
non-trivial problem.  Which is again why "consensus" as a requirement
for a decision-making system is simply not a viable alternative, and
anyone who promotes it simply may have to be ignored or otherwise
marginalized.  The system itself must be able to function properly and
render a decision regardless of whether you have up to 25% of the
people misusing it.  Because they will!

As for why certain people latch onto the concept of consensus and
refuse to face the fact that it is unworkable, I'm still trying to
work out that issue.  But my current thinking is that it may indeed be
a symptom of authoritarianism, the logic being that since
authoritarians are heavily invested in having an ultimate source of
authority, a system that promises to deliver it in the form of 100%
consensus will be vastly preferable to one that only guarantees 51%.
The part that I'm still stuck on is why they would become involved in
these direct democracy projects in the first place, since
dictatorships or other leadership-based systems would seem to be more
to their liking.  The explanation for that could be that there *are*
no forums where one would feel safe arguing for a new dictatorship
because the flaws in those systems have been so clearly demonstrated.
Co-opting (or perhaps even overtly hindering) a direct democracy
movement may simply be their only option at this point.  But of course
their unwillingness to debate the issue is also a red flag: Debate is
not an authoritarian strong point ;-)
  Regards,
    Scott

> Regards,
> Paul