Fwd: Re: (SD2) Q@A/ Bushmonkey algorithm / Golden Rule

--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-
status.
 
>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 
done.

-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 
people. 

-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 
mode*.

-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. Parr

-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.

-Shanti
-Mark, International Social Organizer, SD2
-Seattle WA USA  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/
--- End forwarded message ---