Greetings from the Demosphere Project!

[Cleisthenis]

You have to do what you have to do.

As far as "All demographics will eventualled be marketed including grade-schoolers" goes, it is meant purely in the context that there will be specific version of this software marketed to different demographics. Obviously we wouldn't have a feature rich version that is used by adults and academics be used in grade-school classrooms.

I will fight tooth and nail to prevent this from ever becoming a marketing tool for corporate money.

[rogerhb]

You have to do what you have to do.

As far as "All demographics will eventualled be marketed including grade-schoolers" goes, it is meant purely in the context that there will be specific version of this software marketed to different demographics. Obviously we wouldn't have a feature rich version that is used by adults and academics be used in grade-school classrooms.

I will fight tooth and nail to prevent this from ever becoming a marketing tool for corporate money.

Prepare to become toothless and nailless then.

[Cleisthenis]

I refuse.

[rogerhb]

I refuse.

Or "I mrefush".

I'll just say diebold. Who will trust their democracy to software? Ah, yes, the US.

[Locke]

Hey another user from Demosphere here. Basically, I feel I have to defend Demosphere and Cleisthenis. He is right that once people feel like their vote counts will people get involved. If you guys have problems with our proposal come over to Demosphere to help us out.

Btw, our software will be open to anyone who wants to view the code. We won't (so far) be making it all open-source, just merely the GUI, so any group who wants to use Demosphere can make their own custom look. The rest will be closed-source except to approved inspectors. (Btw, approved inspectors means anyone who won't use what they see to subvert our stated goals.)

Cyniscism is really in my view a sad way to live. How do you guys enjoy your lives?

[rogerhb]

Btw, our software will be open to anyone who wants to view the code. We won't (so far) be making it all open-source, just merely the GUI, so any group who wants to use Demosphere can make their own custom look. The rest will be closed-source except to approved inspectors. (Btw, approved inspectors means anyone who won't use what they see to subvert our stated goals.)

Funny that, can't have a peek at the backend, wonder where the real counting gets done. Diebold anyone?

Cyniscism is really in my view a sad way to live. How do you guys enjoy your lives?

It can be fun after a while! Actually, I'm an optimist by nature but I do read the news. If you believe there is good in everyone why do we have prisons and locks on our doors?

[rogerhb]

Btw, our software will be open to anyone who wants to view the code. We won't (so far) be making it all open-source, just merely the GUI, so any group who wants to use Demosphere can make their own custom look. The rest will be closed-source except to approved inspectors.

Seriously you need to review that policy. If you look at security systems in IT, apart from people like Microsoft etc, the source and the algorithms are there to view by all. The peer review strengthens the software and holes are identified, exploited and plugged.

Are OpenSSH and OpenSSL open? Is their security compromised or enhanced by peer review? How do you expect people to trust a closed box?

[aflurry]

Hey another user from Demosphere here. Basically, I feel I have to defend Demosphere and Cleisthenis. He is right that once people feel like their vote counts will people get involved. If you guys have problems with our proposal come over to Demosphere to help us out.

Btw, our software will be open to anyone who wants to view the code. We won't (so far) be making it all open-source, just merely the GUI, so any group who wants to use Demosphere can make their own custom look. The rest will be closed-source except to approved inspectors. (Btw, approved inspectors means anyone who won't use what they see to subvert our stated goals.)

Cyniscism is really in my view a sad way to live. How do you guys enjoy your lives?

what was the point of this software again? i never had a firm grasp... discussion? we already have the internet. i prefer the chaos there.

democracy? you mean like real legislation? voting? stuff that has real consequences? remind me why we need or want software for that?

what if we have a consensus to subvert your stated goals? what if we have a consensus to open the source code?

and then there's this:

Users and groups of all sizes and types will be able to debate, and discuss issues that matter to them, and reach an informed consensus.

debate ---> consensus?
wha? just show me one thread on this forum that has reached consensus.
what qualifies one type of consensus as informed and another as uninformed?

so many questions... but then i guess the founding fathers had a lot of questions too.

the birth of a democracy... how exciting.

[rogerhb]

debate ---> consensus?
wha? just show me one thread on this forum that has reached consensus.
what qualifies one type of consensus as informed and another as uninformed?

Here is an example of consensus:

'No consensus' on second M6 toll

Or not.

But only 106 of the 9,528 people who responded were in favour of the idea.

But the problem is they came up with the wrong answer, so presumably they will keep on asking till they get the right answer.

Flogging will continue until moral is improved.

[Cleisthenis]

Hey Locke!

:D

In terms of the coding for it, it will eventually be open-sourced and distributed through the network. It's a tough call though. Having it relatively closed off might prevent hackers who want to exploit loopholes in it, but having it completely open may enable us to tighten them sooner.

[Locke]

Well, the issue about the open or close sourcing the code appears to be misunderstood. I don't want to open-source the code because then just anyone could alter the code, and compile their own version. They then could pretend that we made it and this altered code could be used to manipulate people. I would let people look at the code, but I know that people in general can be trusted, its just people in specific can not be trusted.

Demosphere will face massive barriers, and if the code is open-source, one of those will be fakers manipulating people's votes. That is something the neocons would do to maintain their power-base.

Of course we could always offer official downloads from our servers, but then that defeats the whole purpose of alowing people to modify the GUI. If we are the only ones offering downloads we could make it open-source with the legalese saying basically, if you download from anywhere else, we are not liable for any damages. Any problems with this method?

[rkerver]

Cleisthenis:

by returning consensus power to the people in a grassroots and local way. Giving them a vehicle to have a tangible affect on politics and issues that matter to them.

I concede that if your aim is help at the local level, you may have an impact, in a few places, where you do lots of grassroots activism to activate you system for local political consensus. I agree with rogerhb: "Democracy can only be maintained in the small scale. Not the big scale IMHO, because it all depends on trust, and we can really only trust people we have physically met."

"May..." You can only reap that which you sow. Is this really what you want to do with what time is left to you? If so, may you be well blessed in your endeavor! Be prepared for massive cynicism, anti-activism, and retaliation from threatened special interests. And don't call it a manifesto because that language will be target one.

Also, I am a student of consensus decision making, for better than 30 years. I've never seen the process work without a well honed means for conflict resolution. Even the committed find that their human nature posses difficulties. I also feel it only works face to face, moment to moment. If local, why not the already proven process? What can an open source system add to the proven equation?

[aflurry]

"Democracy can only be maintained in the small scale. Not the big scale IMHO, because it all depends on trust, and we can really only trust people we have physically met."

...And don't call it a manifesto because that language will be target one.

Also, I am a student of consensus decision making, for better than 30 years. I've never seen the process work without a well honed means for conflict resolution.

... i'm not sure about those hyperrestrictive requirements for working democracy. what does meeting people have to do with trusting them? Part of what makes the US system such genius is the implicit lack of trust involved. The constitution is as good a manifesto as you need.

The problem doesn't lie with the people, it lies with the system. Not to sound cliche`, but it's true, people become disinterested when they feel disconnected and ineffectual.

... i think you mean uninterested. Anyway, if people are not the problem, technology is not the solution...(wait. i lost track of my own double negatives.) this software seems like another layer of mediation providing easy, trash involvement, or worse, the illusion of civic participation.

...speaking of terminology (and cynicism), along with "manifesto" it might be good to dump the terms "movement," "consensus," "revolutionary," "apathy," "grassroots," and "Demosphere." Lots of coopted buzzwords there that have lost their meaning like a crackhead loses teeth. And i'd prefer not to have my democracy branded.

...ok, enough sarcastic remarks. i will try articulate my cynicism. You can't go into a democracy with a "positive view of human nature," and claim that it is just the venue that is flawed. all that does is justify sugar coating the value of participation (why all this focus on the GUI... will I be able to download democra-skinz to give my democracy an HR Giger theme?), or predetermine what positive participation looks like. having a positive view of human nature has no value. you may view cynicism as an impoverished worldview. i would say that i love people because of my cynicism. i doubt i could love them more if they spun like tops, which they don't.

I have been involved in community consensus processes where they claimed to "not recognize the idea of the veto." i think the idea was that you'd stay in the room yapping until the would-be vetoer was browbeaten into giving up. what kind of consensus is that? how about a simple vote? if you're in the 49%, you lose. how about arriving at your own conclusions based information gathered out in the real world, in your own way, or even in isolation from your own head, and not having to sit in some chatroom convincing people? providing a library of research materials is inherently a process of filtration, not access.

[Locke]

Perhaps I should remind everyone of a certain quote:

Democracy is the single worst system of government invented unless you compare it to all of its competitors.

[Cleisthenis]

Aflurry:

I really value your responses and input here. The discussion of the GUI pertains to the fact that it might be the only part of this system which is available for the modding community to develop. The core of this software, indeed the most important functions and featuers, will likely be drab and uninteresting in the beta and early version we release.

The important distinction in this endeavour is that, it's not enough to have random chat rooms or even a myriad of online discussion forums like this one to contribute to democracy in a positive way. Aside from blogs and the medium's usefulness in keeping the mainstream media honest, there is no inherent greater value generated by more talking heads talking amongst themselves.

What we're trying to do is create a tool that allows existing unions, and associations, committees and institutes, reach consensus (not neccessarily unanimous) on issues that affect them.

The important bit to understand is that this will all be molded around a community framework - a layered hierarchy of nations, provinces, states, counties, cities, towns, electoral wards and local communities.

At each level people can find meaning and access to real issues, and find a meaningful resource of media links, and research, and data.

The design and implementation of this is paramount, as crafted in such a way as to grow naturally, like an influenza spreading through the world of ailing democracy.

The key ingredient using the Demosphere as a means of tying together the thousands of existing groups offline, and hundreds of parallel projects online working towards the same general goal.

We will not abandon the "... terminology (and cynicism), along with "manifesto" it might be good to dump the terms "movement," "consensus," "revolutionary," "apathy," "grassroots," and "Demosphere."", because that is exactly what this will be.

The power structures in place today on any level around the world are irelevant to this plan. Anyone who practises martial arts knows that it is leverage - not power - that is decicive in the outcome.

Thoughts?

[aflurry]

The power structures in place today on any level around the world are irelevant to this plan. Anyone who practises martial arts knows that it is leverage - not power - that is decicive in the outcome.

Thoughts?

well i guess i'll have to be bit by the flu bug. i'm still unclear about the purpose of this thing. and frankly, i feel like the copy is a little sales pitchy.

what exactly do you mean about the power structures in place being irrelevant to this plan?

even the last metaphor about leverage. sounds all eastern mysticismy and cool. but how is leverage related to democracy, really? democracy deleverages. one person one vote.

there is too much corporate blah blah blah for me.

all of the problems the software assumes are uncontroversial access issues, are actually in themselves political... timing of elections, direct or representative democracy, without obvious solutions.

while there are many problems with American democracy, and it may be useful to develop communication tools.

this reminds me very much of the tech co efforts to redesign education around the computer.... in an effort to "make learning fun." learning isn't fun. it is work. and people should not let techtools fool them into believing they can or should gewt around the work.

democracy is work too. having it handed to you in some packaged software .exe.... well, maybe you could call it a virtual democracy (or a Democrasphere tm), but not a democracy. People are going to have to do some work, and it ain't just going to be following the links provided conveniently by the Democrasphere coders right alongside their ballot screen (how nice). Nice sentiment, but convenience is not the path to democracy.

[Cleisthenis]

what exactly do you mean about the power structures in place being irrelevant to this plan?

What I mean is that it doesn't matter if the UN re-structures or not, it doesn't matter if the Neo-Conservatives manage to fufill their NWO or not, the status quo itself has no real bearing on wether or not this experiment is successful.

That quote is a defense against those who would say that the fight is already lost.

... but how is leverage related to democracy, really?

Leverage in the sense that if we can creat this intuitive tool for people to connect and have a say on issues that affect them and vote on them etc... we could leverage the power of the people in ways current institutions in democracy haven't been able.

democracy is work too. having it handed to you in some packaged software .exe.... well, maybe you could call it a virtual democracy (or a Democrasphere tm), but not a democracy. People are going to have to do some work, and it ain't just going to be following the links provided conveniently by the Democrasphere coders right alongside their ballot screen (how nice). Nice sentiment, but convenience is not the path to democracy.

I share your sentiment that democracy is work. I take great effort to stay ontop of the issues of the day, maintain a balanced media diet, vote in every election, and discuss politics wherever and whenever I can.

It's important to realize that this software itself isn't democracy. It's simply a tool for democratic action, consensus, and information. It would be nice to see it develop to an institutional level where governments adopt it to create more transparency and accountability in their beaurocracies, but before it ever gets to that stage, people are going to have to find this useful, engaging and stimulating enough to tell their friends about.

The links will not be provided conveniently by people who help code the software, but rather they will be added via anyone via wiki fashion. The goal of this thing isn't to create well-defined boundries for people to engage democracy in, the goal is to increase access to media, data and information, while provding a meaningful framework for community discussion, debate, and consensus.

We recognise that it's not enough to have talking heads on the demosphere, or even talking heads voting on the demosphere. Demosphere is potentially a launchpad for a new era of political activism and identification, both online and most importantly - offline.

[perplexd]

You need to listen to roberhb more carefully. He is telling it to you straight, but it does sorta wreck your project.

[Cleisthenis]

Sorry what did he say?