Fwd: Re: (SD2) Q@A/ Bushmonkey algorithm / Golden Rule
Mark parashakti108 at yahoo.com
Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:21:47 -0000
--HighIQSingles@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" wrote:
--"Ryan Mathew Parr" wrote:
> > -M: The PageRank algorithm is very collusion resistant. PageRank
generates a bottom-up hierarchy that requires broad support. There
are technical details on PR if you go the the links section of my
group. PageRank doesn't reward for reciprocal links.(Your concerns
are legitimate.) SD2 is democratic, and would have quality filters to
keep the plastic-flashy-money-puppet candidates from rising in peer-
>R: It would be creating collusion, not preventing it. People vowing
for dominance amongst a close nit system cannot work. It is like
putting people in a cabin when an avalanche submerges them 20 feet
beneath the ice, deciding once and for all that the last one not
eaten might well have a chance to come out alive. Whenever people
constantly fear for their position, it is likely no real work can be
-M: I disagree. Only the top three or five would be the decision
makers - chances are they got there by NOT worrying about their
position, and acted like their real self.
>R: You must reallocate the resources, confuse the contacts with a
new voice, and possibly fight over the office furniture. No new ideas
would come into play, and people would be burdened by the thought
that any new decisions would revert to the old 'tried and true'
methods. Well, not everyone wants tried and true methods, because
once they look back, they'll find out that the competition has just
thrown them into the dirt. You need people outside the system to
determine whether they are fit to exist where they are at, though
that is still a prerequisite, if we intend any competition to come
into play with any system.
-M: I think that statecraft experts would want innovation, and would
select those without entrenched mindsets. I see your description as
being more fitting of the current system.
> > -M: No. Having a deeply layered hierarchy, like SD2 would
generate, would create an identifyable and uncontestable statecraft
community. This community would be very interested in its own
legitimacy and in serving the people. If not, the top ranked would
quickly be replaced - rank recalculations can occur as frequently as
weekly. Legitimacy comes from accountability.
>R: Things are a bit more complicated than that. It is similar to
looking back on the 'indulgences' that were handed out for a fee. You
can't say that the church, deciding on allowing such people to
practice this process, were in affect 'helping' people
altruistically. Besides, when you have people in a comfortable
position, they may well be comfortable and self-confident enought to
attempt to play the system game, without any real checks and balance
in place; as they are good at looking innocent. They befriend others
for their own gain, and they would like-wise find accountability in
seeking trust with likeminded people.
-M: Are you suggesting that "players" would "worm" and "weasel" their
way up the hierarchy in my system? The thing is, players know other
players - they would go partway, but people would see their game - I
think that there would be only sincere people past a point. Again,
you seem to be describing the current system and not my system.
>R:...isn't going to change too much. If only there was a way to tell
a boss, "Your performance has been unsatisfactory, and I want you to
step down; I'm taking your place."
-M: With SD2, it is conceivable for a worker to ask his/her coworkers
to have him/her replace his/her boss.
> > -M: Your concern is with *entrenchments* of whatever form. With
SD2, it would be in everyone's interest to be a watchdog - "I found
omeone's conflict of interest!"
>R: decide on a system where anything has come into fruitation, that
has depended on subserviance to equidesent people? Where someone is
in a position, that yet again, isn't in position; and nothing is
certain. However, if you put someone in place that is known to be
superlative, you than find that such a person is best to lead. CEOs
find this in place, where the senior executives are all-together in
deciding whether such a person should step down, or whether or not
they should take the reigns (I hate using cliches.) I'm not
advocating protection from incompetents. I just as well assume that
such a system would work together to mislead people and make it
appear on the outside that nothing is wrong, when the facts remain
that people are taken advantage of. The people within the ranking
system would try their best to not let anyone lead in on their flaws
or their actions. Thereby, we would have less accountability. The
people being put in place have already learned how to play off
-M: Again, you are describing the current system. Buddy systems work
well in the current system, but wouln't work well with SD2.
> > -M: With SD2, I think that the supporting community would
pressure there to be a transparent governance process.
-R: Than, we are left with a term by which a community (which is
defined by what?) is watching these individuals.
-M: The leaders would define the boundry between the *statecraft
experts* and the *activists*. If the community was too big, it would
be watered down. If it was to small, it would be too exclusive and
would lack sufficient diversity. If I was a leader, I would look at
the rank numbers. I would look for *clustering* relative to
theoretical rank distributions.
-R: What if we only need one individual? We than have a similar
voting process in place to elections; such as city mayor?
-M: Mayors are the administators of laws passed by city council. In
normal politics, there are NEVER single individuals. However, there
are provisions within SD2 that would allow an individual to be both
the sole rule-maker and administrator - this is called *emergency
-R: That wouldn't require the SD2 system. Than, if we are talking
about the media, we are making a similar analogy to the CEO of MSNBC
(I believe there's a CEO). We wouldn't need any different system, as
a checks and balance is already established by the executives. Such
people are already determined to function where they are at, and the
implied system is already in place; it just isn't talked about. Ryan
-M: There are states which allow for single owner corporations in
which one person can be both the CEO and board of directors, however,
these are always small private corporations. SD2 operating in
*emergency mode* would have a similar structure.
-M: SD2 operating in *normal mode* is like a corporation with a three
or five member board of directors, with the CEO as an executive
director. The main difference is that SD2 is a bottom-up hierarchy,
compared with a business corporation which is a top-down hierarchy.
Business corporations operate by the *Golden-Rule*:
"He who has the gold, RULES!"
-M: Fortuanately, SD2 constraints can be written into the bylaws of
both business and nonprofit corporations. Used in a business
corporation, investors would loose control over most, if not all, of
their investment. They might still make a profit.
-M: SD2 used by a nonprofit would be a *nonprofit with members* and a
three or five member board. This would be *normal*, except the member
votes would be processed with PageRank instead of in-degree.
-Mark, International Social Organizer, SD2
-Seattle WA USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/
--- End forwarded message ---