Open politics in force

From eg

(Redirected from Diverse)
Jump to: navigation, search

The ruleset open politics in force applies audit criteria to political wikis. It recognizes and rewards reflexive processes in wiki governance and very strongly rewards fully reflexive wiki best practices with high scores. The following is drawn from openpolitics.ca: open politics in force and the elaborated explanation of the specific tests used for each of the 'open' criteria at yahoogroup: openpolitics.

The open politics in force audit criteria were developed over 2003-6 through several real projects involving people who worked with wikis to do political research and policy outreach, mostly in Canada (which has a parliamentary system modelled on the UK's own). Some of the projects ran into serious obstacles, and most of the wiki contributors were also actively involved in political disputes in Wikipedia. Their positions weren't necessarily the easiest to advance, since many were Greens and Canada has a shameful environmental record. As usual for Canadian Greens, chaos and strong senses of entitlement intervened, which had the benefit of helping clarify the Reynolds defense and other rules relevant to online journalism.

The ruleset in its original form emphasized rootedness, democracy, accountability, strict legality, and accomodating diversity of views using disciplined deliberative structures and troll-friendly venues - especially troll-friendly wiki. It's summarized at openpolitics.ca as a set of audit criteria, broadly stated. The specific criteria are openly debate on the openpolitics yahoogroup.

UK.openingpolitics.org intended that: An actual audit of this wiki will be arranged when it has sufficient user mass and has achieved some media visibility. Any test cases hopefully will tend to strengthen the Reynolds defense and identify its weaknesses.

The audit tests are:

  • Accountability rules that permit anonymity for persons "expressing their free speech rights and for using the Internet to communicate about democracy and human rights matters," which in the US is actually required by law of service providers;
    • a uniform content dispute procedure involving right of reply and right of refactor must apply, similar to the ICANN uniform domain name dispute procedure only "trolls and roles" use pseudonyms, as "anyone debating Feroshus_of_Trolls knows damn well that they are not debating a person using their real name, so there are no administrative requirements here to protect anyone from the consequences of that" - everyone knows all users are trolls
    • clear, explicit, standard of evidence as in a courtroom or Wikipedia ArbCom, one that is cognizant of the many difficulties inherent in discerning identity, intent or malice in electronic media
  • Diversity, that is, seeking not just the opinion of the subject of articles but as many factions or groups as possible, soliciting diverse external views
  • Rootedness, that is, respecting most those who are local to the situation (geographically), but also abstaining on decisions that affect you too closely or not at all - develop conflict of interest policies
  • Democracy, that is, have all users generally had the chance to participate in setting the standards, via a "clear, simple, improving process vocabulary" such as the law itself? And are political virtues taught so that others become able to "take over", franchise or fork the service?
  • Legality, which in a global context means legal terms used only in their legal sense, no criminal accusations, and privacy protected to high standards, e.g. "In the UK we have the protection of the Data Protection Act which means, without a court order, ISP's and internet publishers CAN'T reveal personal registration information without a court order having been issued forcing them to do so."

Contents

[edit] Research

It was originally developed by Craig Hubley of ECG after deploying several political wiki projects, e.g. Living Platform interface, openpolitics.ca, Imagine Halifax, other large public wikis and supporting global democratizing efforts. It applies a theory of collective intelligence Hubley has promulgated since the early 1990s, focused on rigorous understanding of consensus, evolving tech trees, observed factions and epistemic filtering within social media. According to Hubley's original thesis, epistemic filters should be applied to all knowledge to avoid violating basic assumptions (right or wrong) of users/readers. Only as they realized contradictions and constraints and lack of consensus could they voluntarily loosen these filters and encounter more challenging views. A phenomena since observed in Twitter and facebook. A series of small-scale real-world tests (called Lilliput) from 1999 to 2004 were conducted in Toronto, the most ethnically and religiously diverse city on Earth, in small campaigns, the largest of which gained 50,000 votes for Tooker Gomberg for Mayor of that city. By 2003-4 the work focused on federal issues in Canada, with the stablest banking system and most peaceful street polity of any G8 country, resulting in the Living Platform interface, which the GPC used to create its 2004 platform with which it expanded its vote from 0.8% in 2000 to 4.2% in 2004. In 2005 he applied the principles on a larger scale to develop policy that eventually influenced one UN ICLEI treaty clauses 2.6, 3.4, 4.3 (leading to global cooperation on best practice exchange - per 3.4 - among World Mayors, and monetary reform - per 4.3 - see UN TEEB). He also successfully lobbied the Govt. of Canada to require Integrated Community Sustainability Plans of any municipality in order to receive gasoline tax revenue.

In 2005-6, based on these successes, Hubley proposed independent third-party audits to test forums for whether practices are ultimately accountable, diverse, rooted, democratic and legal. He later considered extensions to test the autonomy, liquidity (.e.g democratic domains) and self-funding of audits. The criteria were debated on the openpolitics yahoogroup from October 2005 [1] to March 2006 [2] and since then have remained open to public input. The larger questions opened were summarized as the real web 3.0 and related essays. Operational conclusions remain visible in verb:namespace, doctrine:namespace, term:namespace and category:trollish, which is a language for human-to-human mediated debating. Exhaustive defining vocabulary work including verbs describing both machine and human control relationships, preposition, etc. and commitments was eventually summarized into the uncontroversial verb:namespace of this wiki. A tech tree consisting of existing and projected technologies, suitable for deployment in game format, was proposed and developed 2001- (not all released). The patterns were compiled into living ontology, a work-in-progress as of 2012 that attempts to characterize many critical discernments required in real politics.

Hubley himself withdrew from partisan politics in 2007 with his essay Why nothing can ever change, Feb 2 2007 [3], thereafter commenting only narrowly on Canadian federal accountability [4], citizen input successes in the UK [5] andagenda management [6],election prediction and outcomes [7]. He published the frustrated voter on electoral reform, characterized voting system values [8] and the BSTV+C+L system [9] optimized to reflect those values optimally. See also [10]. In 2011 he worked on voteswap.ca [11] and other practical efforts to defeat undemocratic and corrupt parties in Canada. He refused to become involved in numerous efforts to revive his work in the Green Party of Canada due to that party's refusal to deal seriously with political free speech positions. As of 2012 he remains active on anti-SLAPP and community self-reliance problems. See micro-grid research.

Prior to all this, in the 1990s, Hubley worked on capital asset model problems closely related to Basel III accords. He was for instance responsible for developing several C++ APIs for Algorithmics (since owned by Fitch and now IBM) employing the risk as regret quantifying method for scenario analysis. This was developed further into the instructional capital approach that he detailed in his 1999 essay on six styles of capital asset. A key motivator for the political work was the observed irrational process by which scenarios were included or excluded and the variables that they characterized.

[edit] open politics in force: the ruleset

The original 25 points of "open politics in force" published at openpolitics.ca were turned them into scores, in which a (R)ule (being more serious), a service that implements it very strictly scores 6 points, while getting a (C) commitment scores 4, an (E) expectation just 2. Extremely poor performance ranks a zero. Since the scores in each category will be MULTIPLIED TOGETHER, this results in a zero overall score.

[edit] Rules, Commitments and Expectations

Hubley originally, in 2003-4, proposed a three tier hierarchy, later simplified to two, loosely corresponding to the terms of use, guidelines, and community of practice that influenced open politics itself, most notably at dkosopedia.com, SourceWatch and openpolitics.ca itself - applying a rule/commitment/expectation living ontology pattern:

  • R = mandatory Rules
  • C = mutual Commitments
  • E = social Expectations

In more recent versions, many "expectations" were replaced by less stringent "commitments" , leaving expectations as a strictly social layer up to each faction as a community of practice rather than being used to define any desirable social situation using GEVAD. In 2005 the model re-emerged as a test-first model, not open to negotiation but a rigorous solution, to which a reflexive process can only apply once the initial release is set. Rather like a constitution, it represents a complete theory that should evolve in practice, not in theory prior to any such practice. He proposed an ECG master credential that would permit local exceptions to be recognized by persons familiar with local conditions. Inspired by the classical practice of Islamic fiqh, Commonwealth common law, human rights law.

Five scales, each with "positions labelled R, C, E" were proposed, with audit criteria [12] and debated, ultimately leading to the mature criteria [13] as accounted below:

[edit] accountability

Accountability criteria begin with A.

  • A.1 anonymous comment and edit allowed (R) -though comments are deprecated except for beginners Still sometimes debated but not by the experts
  • A.2 apparently-real names always validated (C)
    • argument re real names
    • argument for: people debating George_R._Jones as they use their own bodily name have a right to know that Mr. Jones may simply disappear at any time, being a sock puppet of someone else.
  • A.3 only "trolls and roles" use pseudonyms (C) - limiting play ethic w.r.t. identity
    • argument for: anyone debating Feroshus_of_Trolls knows damn well that they are not debating a person using their real name, so there are no administrative requirements here to protect anyone from the consequences of that. Gene Gurkoff etc.
    • argument against: a case can be made for designating a special status/permission set for those who have verified identities, but it is difficult to argue that creative usernames should not be allowed for those people who have verified their credentials. Some visual cue could be provided however, to indicate whether the user in question is verified real or not.
    • argument for: creativity is not a universal good, for instance in accounting?.
    • argument against: users in virtual environments often adopt multiple personas. Only one could be real? Editors note: one real name to sign things, as many troll names as you want. It's simply distracting and diluting to "sign" every correction of every spelling error.
  • A.4 clear, explicit, standards of evidence (C)
  • A.5 implies one uniform content dispute procedure (R)- relying primarily on debate by edit.
    • argument against: in practice, dispute mechanisms, rules, and guidelines mimic common law - precedent are established and supported by those in authority.
    • argument for: there are legal code?s that work more top-down, e.g. German law?, Napoleonic code?, etc.
  • A.6 neutral naming conventions/precedents (C) - based on global best practices i.e. GFDL corpus namespace.

[edit] detailed audit criteria

  • A.1 anonymous comment and edit allowed (R)
    • A.1.Q: What is the status of anonymous comments and edits? Are they:
    • A.1.0: Allowed for those with certain IP numbers and certain friends.
    • A.1.1: Never allowed, except by creating disposable accounts as usual.
    • A.1.2: Allowed by simply creating a disposable account to log in with.
    • A.1.3: Only allowed if someone identifies themselves to the operators

(creates an account with an email address that can be checked).

    • A.1.4: Allowed any time; People can claim to be any person they want.
    • A.1.5: Only allowed if the individual reveals their IP number to all,

permitting strict legal accountability but also some deception tactics by the technically knowledgeable (who can proxy these).

    • A.1.6: Allowed any time; People can reveal a real name, or no name;

Users who actually file real legal complaints can access IPs, but they can be used for no other purpose, and cannot be seen by administrators except in cases of service-wide liability (in which case some scheme such as three party quorum is used).

  • A.2 apparently-real names always validated (C)
    • A.2.Q: How much effort do you go to, to verify a real-looking name?
    • A.2.0: Only as much as those "in charge" feel is necessary themselves.
    • A.2.1: None. It is assumed to be a real person unless they're famous.
    • A.2.2: Check if it appears to be a trusted insider behaving strangely.
    • A.2.3: Only if the person claims some credentials, is it checked out.

Explicitly forbid impersonation and disposable names that might be confused with body names or organizational roles that aren't official.

    • A.2.4: Check all attempts to claim anything but obvious troll names;

Explicitly forbid impersonation and all disposable names other than obvious troll names; Require credentials be presented for anyone claiming to speak for an organization in official roles; Insist that body names be stated in a standard form, e.g. only "Craig_Hubley" is an acceptable name for an account of that author.

  • A.3 only "trolls and roles" use pseudonyms; official acts are both! (C)
    • A.3.Q: When acting in official capacity in some role, the insiders
    • A.3.0: can do whatever they feel is appropriate, using any account.
    • A.3.1: use one opaque account name that is generic for several roles.
    • A.3.2: use an opaque account name for this exact specific role only.
    • A.3.3: use an account name including their real name, and their role.
    • A.3.4: use an account name including their real name and exact policy

under which authority that person believes themselves acting in that exact instance (or equivalent policy such as always making edit comments that include direct links to the policy enforced)

  • A.4 clear, explicit, standards of evidence (C)
    • A.4.Q: When arguments are advanced for a position or for a decision
    • A.4.0: they can introduce any claim they want and only insiders (like

logged-in users) can challenge it, by sending mail or comments

    • A.4.1: they can introduce any claim they want and only insiders (like

logged-in users) can challenge it, by editing/hiding the claim

    • A.4.2: they can introduce any claim they want and only insiders (like

logged-in users) can challenge it, but they must do so within a protocol that requires them to state a basis for challenging it or a standard of evidence that should apply to all such claims

    • A.4.3: they can introduce any claim they want as long as it is clearly

attributed, or a person with a real name takes responsibility for it some other way (such as signing it while logged in) in a reasonable amount of time, or it is noted as being a rumour.

    • A.4.4: they are marked as opinion, period, not necessarily shared by

anyone who shares the position, and backed only with evidence that meets a high common standard set for that type of position or decision, which is fairly enforced for all positions on that same issue, just as it would be for sides in a legal challenge.

  • A.5 one uniform content dispute procedure (R)
    • A.5.Q: When content that is not specific to a position or decision is

disputed (for instance, being reverted back and forth often)

    • A.5.0: this simply continues until someone with power gets angry.
    • A.5.1: it must be marked as disputed and reverted to a limited stub

that makes no controversial claims until a consensus arises - somehow; most of the debate on the consensus is not visible.

    • A.5.2: it must be marked as disputed with rationales and public debate

of the details required (say on a wiki talk page or chat room) but with constant attempts to reach that consensus in the open.

    • A.5.3: as .2 but limits apply (e.g. the three-revert rule before page

protection) and declarations of bias and recusements encouraged (so that only one champion of each point of view is involved).

    • A.5.4: as .3 but only persons who meet a certain minimum standard of

integrity are allowed to participate as advocates for a version

    • A.5.5. as .4 but integrity is assessed per issue and per person using

different criteria - which criteria are up to the whole group.

    • A.5.6. as .5 but integrity is assessed per issue based only on degree

to which someone is capable of convincing others of positions with which one disagrees, and per person based only on powers to identify conflict of interest and persons of greater skills and defer to the group, or to those others, whenever effective.

  • A.6 neutral naming conventions/precedents (C)
    • A.6.Q: Names of policy terms, places, people, concepts and methods
    • A.6.0: can come from anyone or anywhere, it's all up to the author.
    • A.6.1: must be sensible and not obviously offend any insider involved.
    • A.6.2: may come only from a neutral source of precedents where rivals

and outright opponents have direct influence over things' names

    • A.6.3: may come only from such a neutral source as .2 but with further

requirements to engage that neutral source and fix poor naming so that both the neutral source and the organization's copy are now correct - meaning only open content neutral sources can be used (because Wikipedia is far easier to fix than Britannica).

    • A.6.4: as .3 but with exhaustive consideration of how disputes arise,

and careful distinction of inherently biased proposals and positions and organization names, which are chosen to advocate, so that a detailed protocol applies to all naming and linking.

(See Dkosopedia frameship provide an example of a process that might meet this criteria, and for naming conventions see such as those of openpolitics.ca)

(maximum accountability score is 6*6*4*4*6*4 = 13824, minimum is 0)

[edit] diversity

Diversity criteria begin with B.

  • B.1 factions/groups may validate group credentials (C) detailed discussion with examples
  • B.2 contrasting points of view protected by senior editors (R) (e.g. when in doubt they facilitate the minority viewpoint)
  • B.3 diverse under-represented views solicited (R)
  • B.4 rudeness discouraged but not forbidden (C)
  • B.5 ad hominem given additional scrutiny
    • argument against: service wide terms of use must be administered to protect users from intimidation, coercion, threats, abuse.
      • counter-argument: intervention using administrator guidelines doesn't 'protect' anyone, politics itself is composed mostly of intimidation, coercion, threats, and abuse, from some ideology's point of view: Abuse of the word abuse, of the word threat, are far more common among administrators than are incidents where these things actually happen.
      • counter-argument: who watches the watchers? Any code of conduct is an open door to abuses, e.g. use of phrases like unparliamentary behaviour? to shallowly justify emergency meetings and suspension of elected Councillor during GPC Council Crisis. Politics can't tolerate such arbitrariness.
  • B.6 deletion/blocks only by fair due process (R)
    • position: no deletions ever (R) except for strict liability?
      • argument against: inadequate for spam which requires particularly draconian actions
        • counter-argument: spam is a liability in every sense, to permit it actually facilitates clearly illegal activity, it's covered by 'strict' argument against: given rules re who can annoy appearing in law, liability is very easy to construe as meaning literally anything
  • position: due process to officially ignore pages or remove them from view. Editors note though not from retrieval and reference, except for spam which should simply disappear.

[edit] detailed audit criteria

  • B.1 factions may validate group credentials (C)
    • B.1.Q: If a group of people wants to cooperate and trust each other
    • B.1.0: they are discouraged unless they are officially a committee,

in which case they get special permissions no one else gets, and by default whatever they do is hidden unless they reveal it

    • B.1.2: as .0 but by default everything has the same degree of openness

as the rest of the service, unless it is specifically hidden by a consensus (not a majority or whim) of the committee itself

    • B.1.3: they simply declare they are doing so and can create a label or

credential unique to themselves which no other group can use, but this has no status in the operations of the system itself.

    • B.1.4: as .3 but anyone can now make a comment or edit under the name

of the credential or label, e.g. "a Canadian citizen" or "gay person of colour", and the system treats this identically to a comment or edit made by a person using an official role account except that officials can't hide their names, and others *can*, and officials are specifically forbidden from "outing" others. (note that this permits factions to have internal security and to shield and protect any one person from scrutiny or reaction as long as the faction as a whole is willing to account for the conduct of that person, whom they formally take liability for)

  • B.2 contrasting points of view encouraged (R)
    • B.2.Q: When someone disagrees with the dominant view already explicit

and accepted as the consensus view, they must challenge it by

    • B.2.0: learning a complex system of permissions and protocols and by

making enough friends within the system to endorse resolutions to change a small part of the standing policy, which the whole group must then ratify, before a single word can be changed.

    • B.2.1: as .0 but this is only required when the group is actually the

government or the official opposition to it; when the group is not actually writing law or policy that becomes law by default, it has lower-overhead protocols that still work on permission, but, can be learned by anyone, and are taught within the group.

    • B.2.2: forming a faction that, using a very well-defined protocol with

minimal permissions and no arbitrary technical barriers, can be proposing to rewrite entire sections (to be ratified at a later time) to replace those standing, within days after formation.

    • B.2.3: as .2 but within hours: factions are technically supported (as

per B.1.4), protocols are technically supported (as per A.4.4), and making policy changes requires thus only social suasion and - hopefully - being correct on the evidence and the arguments.

    • B.2.4: as .3 but the social suasion is carefully regulated so that the

use of all forms of social pressure to conform is made note of, regulated, and (where possible) prevented with prior training. At least some participants subscribe to Crockers' Rules, and it is permissible to refer to oneself as a heretic, non-member or troll. In effect, all participants are assumed to be "trolls".

    • B.2.5: as .4 but there is also active intervention to fight groupthink

by explicitly requiring the group to give extraordinary powers to newcomers, rivals, and even explicit opponents of the regime who come with any specific criticisms whatsoever to make, even those that come only occassionally in invective-loaded rants; The majority of participants subscribe to Crockers' Rules, and "trolls" are taught mostly by examples of "political virtues".

    • B.2.6: as .5 but administrative powers are only granted to those who

have proven that they have no need for them, and can do every organizing function required without any need for formal power: Individuals failing to adopt Crocker's Rules, be fair even to those actively insulting them, or actively improve their own practice of mediation, arbitration, and political virtues of all kinds, will consistently fail to achieve any real power - power is actually only gained by encouraging contrarianism.

  • B.3 diverse under-represented views solicited (R)
    • B.3.Q: When it is recognized that persons or ecosystems will be much

affected by a policy or view, but there are few or no people available who can actually speak for those living things, then

    • B.3.0: no specific effort is made to find or help those people become

involved - they'll get involved when they are really affected! What counts is involvement by those who are already involved.

    • B.3.1: sporadic outreach is attempted on the most important issues,

and outsiders are made generally aware of the debate itself, by means of email invitations, press releases, web services.

    • B.3.2: regular disciplined outreach by volunteers is encouraged and

supported, with organizational priorities for this outlined.

    • B.3.3: as .2 but there are rewards such as appointments or honoraria

available to those who actually succeed at getting outsiders' views (e.g. in the equivalent of focus groups) documented and reported, so that they can influence or moderate group views

    • B.3.4: as .3 but there are also rewards for integrating outsiders and

their views successfully with existing views using principles of the organization, in such a way that they don't conflict and new positions are discovered that insiders and outsiders have in common; Conversely those who simply pander to outside group views are identified and limited in organizational power.

    • B.3.5: there is a disciplined, systematic, methodology of reducing the

systemic bias of the organization with funded external outreach and encounters, e.g. "open space conferences" held by multiple groups at which they encounter their differences and dialogue.

    • B.3.6: as .5 but with exhaustive consideration of values clashes and

extraordinary effort taken to find and involve the legitimate spokespeople for the most affected parties, e.g. native groups in the far North; Extraordinary effort made to involve actual members of those groups deeply (per B.2.3, .4, .5 and .6 above)

  • B.4 rudeness discouraged but not forbidden (R)
    • B.4.Q: When someone has clearly offended someone else, what we do is
    • B.4.0: remove, suspend or censure the offending person on the word of

a trusted insider that the situation was clearly their fault.

    • B.4.1: remind the offender that a code of conduct applies and that it

can justify their removal if they offend anyone repeatedly or are even moderately offensive to several influential people.

    • B.4.2: invite the offender to review a code of conduct or guidelines

and modify or edit them if they are not reasonable or effective given the organization's purpose, mandate, membership and other needs; Once they have edited or not edited them, they must be assumed to have accepted the outcome and the consensus of other participants, and can then rightly be judged (by administrators alone) on that basis.

    • B.5.3: as .2 but the judgement is by peers, e.g. a "troll poll" which

runs over a period of time so that supporters and detractors of the person can vote regarding what to do about their social and organizational impact on the group as a whole, or its missions.

    • B.5.4: as .2 but the judgement is by tribunal of high-integrity users

(defined as per A.5.6 and B.2.6 and B.3.6 above) in a mediation and ultimately arbitration committee tasked with final rulings.

    • B.5.5: as .4 but the process is highly regulated (with requirements as

stated for A.4.4, A.6.4, B.3.6) and qualifies as "due process": technical definitions of consensus (such as "unanimity minus 2" or "unanimity minus 1") or supermajority (4/5, 2/3, 6/10) apply

    • B.5.6: as .5 but the resolution is assumed to be "adversarial process"

insofar as advocacy (people speaking for others) is permitted, even encouraged or required (possibly using factions per B.1.4) and confidentiality and accountability is enforced in-process (as per A.1.6, A.2.4, A.3.4) whether these rules are generally enforced throughout the service or not (they apply "in court"); rudeness is treated as a minor violation but with full right of appeal if the consequences of reaction to it happen to be large e.g. suspension prevents a person from influencing key debates; comments about the event are affecting their external business. (NOTE: this level of discipline can ultimately be enforced on any open group or project by means of libel lawsuits, so there is an advantage to be gained in adopting these policies early, before such lawsuits come to be filed, and so that the process and its rigour can stand as evidence that the individual, not the group that facilitated the individual, is solely at fault).

  • B.6 removal/suspension/censure/deletion/blocks only by fair due process

(R)

    • B.6.Q: When someone is to be suspended, censured, removed, or have a

body of work removed, or be technically prevented from acting to prevent such actions, for more than a token period of time, the standards which apply to judgements and responses are:

    • B.6.0: whatever the persons entrusted with power think is correct at

the time, given the circumstances, based on their own judgement (including even such elaborated processes as B.5.1, .2 and .3 above, when what is at stake is long-term removal of a person: any system involving peer judgement including so-called "troll polls", or "Athenian democracy", per B.5.3, count as B.6.0 if what is being decided is long-term removal of a person or work that no one else participating in the project can then restore)

    • B.6.1: a full due process as per B.5.4 to B.5.6 above, where both the

judgement and the response or "sentence" are up to the trusted individuals in a negotiation that does not involve the offended persons (meaning they are under no obligation to state impacts)

    • B.6.2: as .1 but responses or "sentences" are strictly regulated so

that time requirements (like "community service"), engagement with hated others (like "healing circles"), and length of time of non-involvement (like "wiki vacation") are roughly scaled to fit the severity of the problem, as measured by raw numbers of persons who would otherwise be involved, who are not involved as a direct result of the conduct of the person being "judged" (meaning that they necessarily must testify that this is the case, else, there is simply no justice to excluding offenders merely on the suspicion or belief that this must be occuring).

    • B.6.3: as .2 but there is peer involvement in judgement (like juries)

and/or sentencing (like transformative justice) so that there's opportunity for any person involved to find a creative solution (such as acting as proxy to present material, appointing into a limited role, hosting conversations in other venues, and etc.).

    • B.6.4: as .3 but there is direct encouragement and reward for those

who are actively engaged in "rehabilitation" and transforming "users in conflict" into persons who "work within the system"; Social support is given those who engage outsiders that is not given, and is actively denied, those who try to exclude them.

    • B.6.5: as .4 but the rewards are material: honoraria, expenses paid;

Not just social sanction but specific sanction for rudeness (as per B.4) is given anyone who so much as implies that it is grounds for exclusion, simply to offend an insider or empowered person (as such behaviour inevitably "chills" internal dissent, and may often lead to the formation of fringe/splinter groups).

    • B.6.6: as .5 but with exhaustive consideration of how disputes arise,

(per A.6.4), could be avoided by pre-work (per B.2.6, B.3.6), and careful consideration of inherent bias in proposals and/or positions and protocols, which often lead to conflict with the outsider who is not, by definition, as empowered as insiders; Extraordinary effort made to ensure that no one removed is a legitimate representative of even a small minority (per B.3.6), and has only been excluded due to exhaustion of other options.

(maximum diversity score is 4*6*6*6*6*6 = 31104, minimum is 0)

Beyond this, the audit criteria are less specific, only rough statements of what Hubley thinks the highest standards are, to let people use sliding scales and their own judgement. Hubley: "I clearly over-rated democracy and under-rated rootedness in the original, and legality may be a too "Western" concept, so I adjusted all these (making all rootedness expectations into commitments, and some commitments into rules, while relaxing legality and democracy a bit). I left "diversity" as the one big thing you can't not do, as reflected by its being 1/3 the score). It seems "expectations" have entirely disappeared, so this is now just a ruleset, with no social latitude whatsoever for "what is expected"."

[edit] rootedness

Rootedness criteria begin with C.

  • C.1 expertise is a function of (internal) community recognition. e.g. if the title sticks (R).

don't confuse clarity with advocacy (C)

    • argument against: idiots can't tell them apart
      • counter-argument: this ruleset isn't for idiots
  • C.2 don't advocate measures you don't support (initially E later changed to C)
    • argument against: unenforceable, and not sure why it matters.
      • counter-argument: a legitimate position should have a sincere advocate and will not be fully represented if the insincere advocates take over, no matter how "objective" they are, or how "dispassionate" they appear to be.
  • C.3 maintain point of view discipline (C)
  • C.4 prefer locality to ideology: ecology, neighbours (initially E later changed to C) - limits diversity with respect to living bodies in proximity.
    • argument against: - unenforceable
      • counter-argument: - force does not come from the centre it comes from cooperation at the edges, ideology is not a way to enforce anything it merely changes the excuses; ultimately the force must be expressed at the edge anyway and the most you can centralize is the instructional capital and the training of enforcers, which has a bad track record, e.g. School of the Americas?.
  • C.5 abstain on decisions that affect you too closely (C)
    • develop conflict of interest policies
  • C.6 avoid making decisions that don't affect you at all (E later changed to C)
    • argument against: - seems to contradict previous.
      • counter-argument: - a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, clearly a dialectic applies in which someone must be close and affeted enough to understand and act responsibly but not be so uniquely singled out that they panic or lie or protect their friends or are suspected of that

require decentralization of decisions to those affected or in a position to do something usually meaning to localize to bioregional scale, e.g. Sharing Water, or to entities that respect it e.g. environmental nonprofits.

[edit] detailed audit criteria

  • C.1 don't claim personal experience you lack (R) 0-6
    • C.1.0: Just saying you did things you never did, met people you never

met, and acquiring perhaps a reputation as a storyteller, but never facing any accountability for it, should not permit you to acquire any influence or power in any organizational role; An organization that doesn't check references closely when it is hiring moderators, systems administrators, or even letting a volunteer run its online forums, would have to score 0 here.

    • ...
    • C.1.6: A strict rule here would be that no statement about oneself

could not be compiled into a resume or biography and sent strictly as is to an employer, bank, or professional college. Making any statement at all that could not appear on a resume would be grounds for removal from a position of responsibility, even if it had nothing to do with what the job was. In other words, strict journalistic and academic standards, in which a person can lose a job for one mistake, apply to any and all statements of one's personal experience anywhere (and not just those that are visible on the World Wide Web, anywhere).

  • don't advocate measures you don't support (C) 0-4
    • C.2.0: People regularly try to push the envelope by asking for some

measures to be taken in one case that they simply don't support in general, and obviously don't support in general. An example is the various harsh penalties often proposed for "all pedophiles" when in fact the most frequent child abusers are parents. If someone would balk at castrating a father who inappropriately touches "their own" child on the kind of evidence that is available in such cases (very little, usually, and highly questionable), but would get away with advocating such measures without being questioned on this point of consistency, score a 0, because, then anyone can advocate anything.

    • ...
    • C.2.4: This can't be a "rule" since it's impossible to say what

someone truly supports. There are also times when one has to advocate a measure that is a compromise, or, the view of one's faction, because there is no more eloquent person to do so - the obligation then is to cede the position if any truly more qualified advocate can be found, who believes the position. There are also times when one advocates a measure one doesn't support in training, proving one's integrity with arguments one doesn't believe, and so on. The commitment is thus to know the difference between these situations and be very responsible with advocacy, never deliberately inflaming situations with extreme measures that may be taken striclty. Even such seemingly fatuous ones as "hang 'em".

  • C.3 don't confuse clarity with advocacy (R) 0-6
    • C.3.0: Has anyone, ever, been labelled an advocate of a measure for

simply saying that it exists (either within the organization or within the population) and therefore must be dealt with? If they objected and any result other than a formal apology was received, score a 0.

    • ...
    • C.3.6: A very strict rule here would be to censure people simply for

asserting that making a position clear was the same as advocating it or was effectively advocating it. Someone who admits or acknowledges that there is a debate on abortion that is actually occurring in the street, is not advocating that there be such a debate, merely they document that fact, and maybe the positions taken by the debaters. An even more serious error is to accuse someone of advocating behaviour merely because they do not advocate harsh measures to be taken against it: they may think harsh measures ineffective, or, impossible to make just (the main reason why the death penalty is not employed any more).

  • C.4 prefer locality to ideology: ecology, neighbours (R) 0-6
    • C.4.0: Can a group of people of a shared ideology who are all

clustered in one geographic location or a very few locations (such as cities) simply take over on a "one person one vote" basis, or similar, and then force their views on others (say in rural areas or another coastline)? Is it possible to systemically prevent a localized and bioregional policy from developing this way? If so, score a big 0.

    • ...
    • C.4.6: Locality is also problematic as a rule unless one is strict

about factions (per B.1.4) reflecting strictly geographic divisions, e.g. as in bioregional democracy. Only a strict bioregional system of classifying neighbour relationships, where someone upstream has to be recognized as having de facto power over someone downstream, and some similar feedback loops recognized for disease or atmosphere or other such relationships, could actually score a "6". To be truly localized is to be totally bioregionalized, and allow for no other identity than "subject of the watershed". Even Riverkeepers/Waterkeepers would only score a "5" here since they only recognize the locality of the waters.

  • C.5 abstain on decisions that affect you too closely (C) 0-4
    • C.5.0: Can persons actually and directly involved in organizational

competitions (such as internal officer elections, or competitions for a job) directly and overtly influence (by vote or priveleged access) a decision on those competitions or elections? If so then score a 0.

    • ...
    • C.5.4: While "affect" is so hard to judge as to make this not a rule,

it is possible to make a very strong commitment

  • C.6 avoid making decisions that don't affect you at all (C) 0-4
    • C.6.0:
    • ...
    • C.6.4: Again, how decisions affect people is hard to assess from the

outside. A strict commitment here would be to back out of decisions that one is unlikely to ever put one directly in a moral dilemma, e.g. men will not have to undergo abortions, almost no white North Americans will directly suffer sickle-cell anemia, or HIV due to officially sanctioned gang rape or human slavery. People balk at the idea that they have no right to make certain decisions, or have any opinion, but, dealing with the uncertainty and "don't cares" of life, is a big life lesson that should be learned early. If organizations enforce at least a filter that removes people from decisions entirely outside their locality (per C.4.6) except on issues of biodiversity (not "animal rights" but the prevention of extinction and invasive species) and direct moral obligation to other beings in our own Genus Homo (including chimps, gorillas, bonobos, orang-utans) in the wild or any being directly participating in human society (as a medical subject or whatever), then, they ca be said to making this commitment stick: nothing that you can't personally empathize with, may you make any decision on, and the claims you can make about that are limited to reasonable ones: maybe you can identify with alley cats in New Jersey but not the alley cats in Bangaladesh necessarily. Send money to the people who care about those cats, but don't pretend to make decisions.

(maximum rootedness score is 6*4*6*6*4*4 = 13824, minimum is 0)

[edit] democracy

Democracy criteria begin with D.

  • D.1 clear, simple, improving process vocabulary (R) - get the words right! especially all control verbs
    • argument against: - vocabulary by fiat would contradict reflexivity,
    • argument against: senior editors should limit parallel page creation and prevent silly verbal disputes which waste time.
  • D.2 assistance is available to anyone excluded (R)
    • argument against: umm, and who would pay for that?
      • counter-argument: limits to all kinds of administration, editorial and technical assistance are imposed by the constraints of any one project; it's no more onerous to guarantee this than it is to guarantee a web service stays up against malware?
    • argument for: users can be motivated by various forms of status, titles, roles, or even revert currency, to assist other users, it isn't necessarily financial capital used up in this provision

commands and content easily translated (C)

    • argument against: umm, and who would pay for that?
      • counter-argument: Irrelevant as the requirement is that it can be "easily translated" not "has entirely been translated". Satisfying this may be as simple as having ordinary users review babelfish? output to see if use of certain words is inhibiting machine translation.
      • counter-argument: Even if paid interventions were required, it is fairly easy to justify these or not based on donations contingent on the support of certain groups, etc., it's among the most easily accountable of the requirements.
  • D.2 degrees of consensus explicitly defined (R) - consensus decision making
    • argument for: voting/decision making software developed, yes.
      • counter-argument: this has nothing to do with software, see agenda protocol, it does not require any software to be developed
    • argument for: without this, it all devolves to groupthink eventually no matter how well meaning people are.
  • D.3 political virtues taught and encouraged (R)
    • argument against: hard to make a rule
      • counter-argument: other users who aren't involved can usually tell when there is a particular lack of a particular virtue in some dialogue, and could use dialogue mapping? or something to make this more objective.
  • D.4 clear process to "take over" the service (R)
  • D.5 clear process to franchise or fork the service (R)
    • argument for: critics should feel free to start their own service.
  • D.6 clear process to remove particular persons from posts, when they are not doing their defined jobs.
    • argument against: fulltime staff are a bunker-building problem anywhere
    • argument against: even democratic leaders often arrogantly refuses any check on their own powers
  • D.7 clear process to remove ECG as prime arbiter of the content or source of key pages if it fails to respect the rules of open politics in force or fire those who resist or attempt to censor or 'spin' these.
    • counter-argument: participation isn't increasing, nor are all issues getting reliably documented, so it's time to consider new organizing options.

[edit] detailed audit criteria

[15]

  • D.3 commands and content easily translated (C) .0-4 [16]

(makes translation more or less automatic thanks to trolls)

  • D.4 *degrees of consensus explicitly defined (R) .0-6

[17] [18] (on "consensus")

  • D.5 *political virtues taught and encouraged (R) .0-6 [19]
  • D.6 *clear process to "take over" the service (R) .0-6

(this means there is a clear path to take over the board of the entity which is actually holding all the keys to all the power)

(maximum democracy score is 6*6*4*6*6*6 = 31104, minimum is 0)

[edit] legality

Legality criteria begin with E.

  • E.1 legal terms used only in thelr legal sense (C) .0-4

[20]

  • E.2 *criminal accusations made formally, or not at all (R) .0-6

[21]

  • E.3 privacy protected well beyond legal requirements (C) .0-4

[22]

  • E.4 share-alike content at least to nonprofits (R) 0-6

(because this one requires both geeks and lawyers, here's what I mean) [23]

    • Legal terms of use agreements and content sharing arrangements

remove the power to put arbitrary conditions (but not all conditions) on re- use of material by political opponents. Ideally, all use by people of wholly contrary values is excluded, outside of these political debates required to keep the peace (prevent measures "other than political").

  • E.5 transparent and responsive governance (C) .0-4

[24]

  • E.6 *logistic support for lawsuits against, but not by, officers (C) .0-4

(note that this is the same standard as is applied for the police) [25]

(maximum legality score is 4*6*4*6*4*4 = 13824, minimum is 0)

(total score is a maximum of 13824+31104+13824+31104+13824 = 103680)

[edit] detailed audit criteria

E. legality E.1 legal terms used only in thelr legal sense (C) .0-4 E.2 criminal accusations made formally, or not at all (R) .0-6 E.3 privacy protected well beyond legal requirements (C) .0-4 E.4 share-alike content at least to nonprofits (R) 0-6 (because this one requires both geeks and lawyers, here's what I mean) Legal terms of use agreements and content sharing arrangements remove the power to put arbitrary conditions (but not all conditions) on re- use of material by political opponents. Ideally, all use by people of wholly contrary values is excluded, outside of these political debates required to keep the peace (prevent measures "other than political"). E.5 transparent and responsive governance (C) .0-4 E.6 logistic support for lawsuits against, but not by, officers (C) . 0-4 (note that this is the same standard as is applied for the police)

(maximum legality score is 4*6*4*6*4*4 = 13824, minimum is 0)

(total score is a maximum of 13824+31104+13824+31104+13824 = 103680)

So overall score as a percentage is the point total as above /1000, and if any open politics service actually scores 100, time to redesign.

[edit] autonomy

Political autonomy is similar to liquidity in the sense of economics, meaning that an asset built up for one use can be readily and easily redeployed for other purposes not originally for seen, and can shift funders or bases easily). For instance, a major barrier to liquidity is a tyranny of small differences applying to license?s and a lack of predictable ways to syndicate?. Addressing liquidity concerns should eventually make a service self-funding? as those who rely on it become motivated to keep it going. Note that this necessarily implies some guarantees that it will keep running even if current management abandons it, thus the democracy concerns above - possibly only a democratic domain can be wholly and reliably self-funding. This could become a sixth scale.

[edit] addresses barriers to entry, costs

Some barrier to entry? concerns regarding the cost of OPIF provisions can likewise be addressed by liquidity, as pooled? volunteer centres and pooled donor list?s are exploited, especially by the most central or critical web service involved in a sociosemantic web. Perhaps more importantly, common conventions adopted to ensure liquidity make training easier and translation more justifiable.

[edit] configuration and context in which expectations are formed

As debated in specific contexts of Green Party of Canada of openpolitics.ca and Liberal Party of Canada especially Carolyn Bennett's campaign [26] , Russian criminal activity reports, and the living platform and similar platforms Hubley was involved in.

Legal terms of use agreements and content sharing arrangements remove the power to put arbitrary conditions (but not all conditions) on re-use of material by political opponents. As a minimum the CC-by-nc-sa license must be used, to allow all nonprofit? use.

    • argument against: this seems unenforceable. public policy proposals are if anything, public domain.
      • counter-argument: the proposals aren't the aspect that affect liquidity, the standards and audits and methods are. If the ISO and ITU? can charge for this, so could another regulator.

More restrictive (but still share-alike) license terms that might forbid military? or police? or extinction use are reasonable for technical? but not political positions. Still more restrictive terms that use trademark laws might also exist to ensure that rulesets do not bifurcate too easily.

Hardware, network, backup and other operations standards are also recommended to ensure privacy and reliable service?, e.g. web service, and leave few (or ideally no) technical excuses for sudden losses of service at sensitive times, e.g. during an election when a political party relying on the open politics web might become disabled.

    • argument against: would be nice, who will pay for it?
      • counter-argument: if something with access to political donation tax credits "can't" fund a service it relies on, something is seriously wrong with the political party or the service itself.

Performance audits establish the above formal criteria and validate the right to participate in a web ring? / search engine? of "open politics", e.g. the open politics web.

    • argument for: comparing with other services and jurisdictions is a good thing.

[edit] editorial and technical standards implied

Within which, editorial "tag" and some other more technical? standards apply:

These make it easy to find debates that stand between specific people, issues that are relevant to particular places or decisions to be made by a deadline. These standards integrate "attention.xml?", RSS feeds and major mediawiki watchlist?s. Note watchlists are now directly supported by mediawiki as RSS feeds. (a test suite for this complements audits).

Framing, rhetoric and metaphors all matter; Consider avoiding terms that imply or invite: technological escalation in war, e.g. "personal attack", a false idea of "community?" uniting factions with no true explicit agreement, or spatial? model or interpretation of any aspect of the service that is not actually military, social, geographic in nature, e.g. use of the terms "navigation" or "here?".

All of these tend to selectively empower certain metaphors, confuse debate, enable cliques & make translation difficult. (some service providers can help the open party address these problems thoroughly)

[edit] Infrastructure, content, implementation and bootstrapping

Standing outside the test are the actual nature of the political views discussed (since parties can be more or less democratic on policy but not on how much power they give the persons that they allow in), and the niceties of content sharing except that it must be share-alike.

Hardware, network, backup and other operations standards are also recommended to ensure privacy and reliable service and fewer technical excuses for sudden losses of service at sensitive times. Any of those can cause the more rigorous processes to fail. At the least any of the higher level processes suggested above must be amenable to at least the argument that "tools didn't work and it wasn't my fault", but, as this is not an excuse in say an election or a government, one must expect that these operations standards tighten up much over time.

Audits not only of the "open politics in force" criteria, but of the network security and reliability, may establish the above as formal criteria and validate the right to participate in a web ring / search engine of "open politics":

Within which, editorial "tag" and some other more technical standards apply: [27] [28] ("designing" URIs) [29] (the REST protocols)

These make it easy to find debates that stand between specific people, issues that are relevant to particular places or decisions to be made by a deadline. These standards integrate "attention.xml", RSS feeds and major mediawiki watchlists. (a test suite for this complements audits for the above, and is probably the hardest part of the problem)

The handling of neutrality can never be left entirely up to convention. Framing, rhetoric and metaphors all matter: Consider avoiding terms that imply technological escalation in war, "community", or spatial interpretation of any aspect of the service not actually military, social, geographic in nature, as this tends to confuse the debate, enable cliques & make translation difficult. (some service providers can help the ((open party)) address these problems thoroughly)

Essentially, these are managerial, operational and technical guarantees that administrators adhere to to ensure equal-power relationships exist in policy debate forums; they don't deal with hardware or net access or training, but, they should - that's an area that needs some investigation. Also the relationship bewteen Expectations, and what is "Effective" (from a factional or partisan viewpoint) or "Efficient" (from a more neutral bureaucratic or operational perspective) needs exploration.

[edit] Bootstrapping (games, bets, votes)

According to "open politics service" these have to be implemented in a specific and well-defined order; Dependencies between the different criteria are also poorly documented:

  • the ladder starts with supporting "competitive" "troll" activity, then supports "factional" organizing directly to reduce conflict. Hubley advises to:
  • "Look hard at B.1.4 and imagine what the web would look like with lots

of reliable credentials, and the ability to hide reliably behind them when you wanted to say something "as a Canadian citizen" or "as a North American Muslim" and knew that you could not after be 'outed'. How much more honest and useful would the web be, then?"

  • "only after that could it support more "collaborative" issue-based

argument, robust naming especially of persons whose identity may be at issue or necessarily concealed (support for anonymous input is not negotiable, there is no serious political voice that believes that it ever can be)."

  • "Without anonymity, you will never get the truly unpopular arguments.

Without which, you cannot see what actually upholds bizarre positions."

  • "then it would proceed to "playful" games, and alternative market

and currency forms that would probably initially be expressed within games"

None of that is addressed in the above, though should be under "democracy", since a vote is a form of currency in that model, and money supply is in any case a quite democratic concept inherently, when the central bank is well run and is not so paranoid of inflation as to cause job loss nor so exuberant as to cause environmental and health damage by funding the incautious or stupid to engage in dangerious enterprises.

Anticipatory democracy is one model where alternative currencies are required, but their role in open politics is yet to be determined. A role for simulation games is also possible, and I considered adding a "playfulness" section to the above, but thought it could not easily be put "in force". ;-)

Hubley:

  • eventually it would become knit into the flow of buying and travel

and even into social activities like dating (like googling someone's politics before going out with them, which is already occurring now)

[edit] seduction and persuasion

Hubley also thought of "seduction" going on the list with "rootedness" and "playfulness", but, it's more of a doctrine, and it over-anticipates what is meant by "feminine" traits. See doctrine:namespace for more.

He finishes: "Simply not enough is said about open politics being a feminine skill."

  • "The secret ballot and open town hall are not negotiable, and there will be never be any demanding of identity cards to voice your opinion. Though credentials must be required to vote... only. So

if you feel it must be added, then "anonymity" is such a characteristic but so beyond dispute as to be unstated in any serious discourse. Anonymity may actually be the foundation of democracy itself: [30]

[edit] the mob

Hubley favoured the term "mob" to "mean that the question refers to mobilization and the formation of mobile groups, and perhaps mobile media to enable them; other prefixes like (web), (wiki), (net), (id), have obvious meanings;). But also to the anonymity of "The mob", it might be interpreted as "those interested in mob formation ask..." though not everyone in politics thinks they're a mob, that's the default). A mob of trolls [or] kangaroos... CC-by-nc-sa by ECG

Retrieved from "http://let.sysops.be/wiki/Open_politics_in_force"
Personal tools