Epitome

91 views
Skip to first unread message

Democracy Foundation

unread,
Jan 2, 2017, 9:11:40 AM1/2/17
to Democracy Foundation
This is a discussion post about Epitome.

Please post your ideas and recommendations.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2018, 5:28:09 PM10/5/18
to Democracy Foundation
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE *TO YOU* FOR DAMAGES

Clause 16 of the GPL indemnifies the copyright holder from the user. A decision made by the user, can harm people who are not the user.

The Bhopal disaster was a result of legal decisions, legally made. It harmed people who didn't make the decision.

Corporate manslaughter is a thing, exactly because of this.

Your local bowling club can be exactly as criminally liable, by causing a death, by choosing not to service their minibus.

It's not the driver's fault that the brakes fail, if the driver is not responsible for having the brakes serviced.

Who is responsible for the brakes not being serviced? GPL section 16? Lol.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2018, 5:53:07 PM10/5/18
to Democracy Foundation
The "unless required by law" clause in GPL section 16 also f*&%s you, if you're planning to use it to evade legal responsibility for the fallout of decisions made by users.

Effectively, the concept of this software is to act as a corporate secretary at a board meeting, for an eminently scalable size of organisation.

You can't have anonymous voting, because you can't know, in advance, which decisions will kill people.

If you can't show you haven't hidden the criminals, you are a criminal.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2018, 8:10:03 PM10/5/18
to Democracy Foundation
GPL Section 16 disavows the responsibility of the decisions made by the inventors of the Athenian forum only to users of the Athenian forum.

Their slaves, wives and foes are not users of the forum, yet all can potentially suffer from their decisions.

Georgios Mavropalias

unread,
Oct 7, 2018, 8:17:44 AM10/7/18
to Democracy Foundation

Harmful or unethical decisions are made daily using the telephone or Facebook, Skype, unethical videos are being recorded using video cameras of different companies, documents are being written by terrorists and criminals daily using Microsoft Word. Yet, have you ever seen the creators of those software or tools getting prosecuted for decisions made by the users of their tools?

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 13, 2018, 1:16:18 PM10/13/18
to Democracy Foundation
This is about functionality of the code.

The code acts as a presiding officer of a democratic forum. This is not a passive function.

Analogously, with a democratic company, where shareholders and board members are the same group, being corporate secretary to such a group is not a passive function.

A court reporter does the same job of recording in writing, the deliberations of a body, but the court reporter is not complicit in the decisions made, where they are accurately recorded.

The modern Greek government had to choose between defaulting on debt to the Troika, and cutting benefits to the people. It couldn't choose to pay both, because it can't print money.

When your user groups, who also can't print money, injure third parties by not paying them, can you claim you are not complicit in decision? On what basis?

If the third party is a government, legitimately entitled to tax reciept, and the users choose not to pay, who among them is responsible for how the meeting is minuted?

Even the admin responsible for providing hosting can say 'not I,' as can all users.

In my Hetherington days, there was a secretary at all meetings. The secretary both decided who spoke, and recorded the minutes. They had no plausible deniability for any decision made, where they chose to minute.

The software will not understand unreasonable, no matter how deep the bun fight gets. Nor will it understand the ten thousand local jurdictions of the world.

To make this work, the users must not be the people, or even the popular forum, the users must be the proedroi. Only they are willing to take legal responsibility to third parties away from the devs.

I guess if there are proedroi, willing to be users, to make democracy possible for their sub-users, this would be a workable model under the GPL.

It's not what you have.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 13, 2018, 1:31:16 PM10/13/18
to Democracy Foundation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball

Nobody ever got convicted of decisions made by magic 8 ball either.

The difference is that the software is minuting democratic meetings. It is *actively* engaged in allowing people to support gassing the Jews if they so choose.

If the Jews were to legally object to being gassed, the person who could write the idea as a resolution, without any responsibility for the resolution, would be a court reporter, who accurately transcribed a judge, who said 'gas the Jews.'

Without a judge to take responsibility, a presiding officer or corporate secretary is complicit in the decisions they allow.

Blank slate complicity with everything, doesn't strike me as wise.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 13, 2018, 2:39:57 PM10/13/18
to Democracy Foundation
You seem to not understand that Facebook, Skype, Ma Bell, &c, are not presented as decision making platforms. They are communication platforms.

If you present software as a democratic, decision making platform, which allows people to decide to evade tax, this is just as irresponsible as leaving a loaded gun in a bar.

You didn't make the bad decision, you facillitated someone else making the bad decision.

Not only that, but you left a trail of evidence that you'd been planning to let people decide to evade tax for a long time on github.

All because you refuse to understand the difference between a postman and a corporate secretary. Epitome, unlike Facebook, Skype, Ma Bell &c, is not merely postman software.

Specifically, it counts the votes and conducts the meeting. Like the Proedroi.

One can have a vote, and conduct a legally binding meeting, on Skype. Skype doesn't keep official records, so a user must assume the role of record-keeper, because Skype does not.

Twitter polls aren't legally binding on their participants either.

If you aren't willing to keep official records, why wouldn't anyone sane use Skype, Facebook, Ma Bell &c instead?

If you are willing to keep official records, how can you not be complicit in every decision made? How can you evade responsibility for the effect on third parties?

Do you have no right of complaint over what the Presiding Officer let Tsipras did to the Greek people because GPL section 16?

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 13, 2018, 5:07:49 PM10/13/18
to Democracy Foundation
You don't seem to understand that not all tools are equal.

If you give me a shovel, and I use it to kill someone, you have plausible deniability. You didn't make the shovel to kill people. Skype makes verifiable record keeping difficult, which might have something to do with why the Channel Awesome admin insisted on using Skype.

If you give me a prison shank, and I use it to kill someone, you don't have plausible deniability. Prison shanks have no non-lethal purpose.

Skype don't sell a collective decision making tool, they sell communication software. Thus they can argue they are postmen, not presiding officers.

By counting votes, Epitome assumes the role of presiding officer. The other, important, quintessential role of a presiding officer is to sandbag.

i.e. If a board meeting resolves to avoid domestic tax, the corporate secretary, knowing such a decision would be illegal if made, properly should not write it in the minutes, even though the board vote is unanimously in favour of criminal action. If the corporate secretary does minute the decision to evade tax, they are complicit in the crime, because they could have chosen not to write; they could have told the board that they will resign rather than record a resolution in favour of criminal behaviour.

A postman is not faced with such a moral quandary. Presiding Officers must routinely deal with such issues.

This applies to the smallest direct democracy. Without a proedroi to take minutes, there is no democracy. The clamour of the crowd must be resolved to a single thread. This requires intelligence, wit, understanding and a conscience.

The mistake goes back to that convention, where it was assumed the role of proedroi is trivial.

It is trivial, as long as the popular forum cooperates and doesn't argue among themselves. In the real world, the popular forum *always* argues among themselves.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 13, 2018, 11:09:50 PM10/13/18
to Democracy Foundation
Further, on the Facebook, Skype &c issue, epitome is materially different.

Like the postal service, they can be used by users to inflict injury on non-users. Where this happens the blame for the injury is not with the postal service, but with the person who decided to inflict injury.

Unlike Facebook, Skype &c epitome has democratic resolutions as an output. To be useful, these must be able to affect, and therefore potentially injure, non-users.

This is, to my knowledge, entirely novel in open-source development, and therefore it shouldn't be a surprise that software licenses in general don't address this problem. Any software that doesn't produce democratic resolutions doesn't need to cover it.

GPL section 16 doesn't force non-users to waive liability. There is no way to force non-users to do anything, they don't have to agree to your terms.

What you can do is have a required group of proedroi who agree to assume all civil liability from the devs to third parties, for the democratic resolutions of their epitome instance.

Without something like this, the devs are complicit in every resolution, because in epitome, you've decided to made an automated court reporter, and task it to the job of a presiding officer.

Combined with anonymous voting, this could make the devteam the only reasonable place to lay liability.

Letting people pass any resolution they want, potentially injuring non-users in any way they can express in words, without any proedroi to absorb liability, is dangerously negligent, akin to leaving a loaded pistol with the safety off for unattended toddlers to play with. Bad consequences aren't certain, but highly likely, and not the fault of the users.

There's a saying, 'The pen is mightier than the sword.' The sword can only kill, words can disinherit, disenfrancise, disqualify, divorce and dismiss. Because of this the output of epitome is incredibly dangerous, even to non-users.

It's like the nuclear power of software development.

Georgios Mavropalias

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 11:41:44 AM10/14/18
to Democracy Foundation

Thank you for your messages.


I do begin to understand your message now that you have clarified it to such extent. Although I do think that being a non-party to a decision (such as the dev team, since they would not have actively take n part in the decision) would not incriminate you. I also think that groups of people can be held liable, and can be tracked from their IP addresses and accounts. Moreover paying someone to do something illegal or not paying someone when it was required to do so, has to be conducted through a legal entity (be it person or organization) and that person would be held liable in this case.


However, I am wiling to accept a possible scenario which I might be unable to imagine, in which a person cannot be held liable for damages and the blame is then put to the dev team.


You have previously raised two concerns.


a) The database can be compromised by the admin and the votes altered.


b) GPL section 16 does not sufficiently protect the dev team from harmful democratic outcomes produced by Epitome when used by others.



How would you address those two issues?


For (a) would you instead shift to a distributed database, such as a blockchain?


For (b) would you have both the admins (or the people that installed epitome to their system) AND each user accept a Terms of Service document that makes the assume the responsibility and liability for any outcome produced by Epitome?


Please let us know of your recommendations. These are important issues you are addressing and I would love to hear your thoughts on how to resolve them.


Thank you very much.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 6:36:16 PM10/14/18
to Democracy Foundation
You are not party to Facebook ToS rule changes either, does that make you exepmt from them? No.

This raises a good point. The Facebook ToS is the rules by which all Facebook users are legally compelled to abide. There's often a huge fuss when Facebook changes the ToS, but users still have to abide by the ToS to continue usage.

Likewise, a small chess club may choose to change the official tie colour at an AGM.

This decision, while pretty trivial, is legally binding on the membership, assuming the AGM is properly minuted. If the AGM is not properly minuted, the decision is not legally binding and the deliberations are a waste of time.

Members who missed the meeting, even members unaware of the resolution, are required to follow the rules of the group. A member cannot claim the old club tie is the current official club tie, because they did not get the memo, or they weren't at the meeting, so didn't get to vote against the change.

Except of course if the resolution was passed via epitome, it isn't legally binding, so no-one is bound by it.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 8:11:00 PM10/14/18
to Democracy Foundation
For a) you could shift from PostgreSQL on the back to SQLite, and host it in a git repo. Then you have Proedroi who agree to clone the repo and run periodic pulls. If the admin make edits, the Proedroi will see inconsistencies and can raise the alarm.

(There's also an issue that Postgres is a clunky beast that takes up lots of RAM. At the load levels I expect, SQLite will likely outperform Postgres)

For greater security, the repo can be hosted at a different location from the datacentre hosting epitome, and every write to the SQLite db can be followed by a commit and push.

epitome can generate a ssh key for automated passwordless pushes, and potentially github could be used as the master db store.

For b) you need Proedroi. They already exist, because in any potential user group, *someone* has to be minuting the meetings. They have to agree that they, collectively with other Proedroi of their group, will assume all civil liability to third parties from the devteam, with regard *specifically* to their group's use of their instance of the software.

As a side-effect of the previous solution to a), minutes become bombproof. This is a potential killer feature for the secretary of any student society, who has enough paper to keep track of already.

If the AGM of a student society is shifted to epitome, and the minutes are trivially replicable, then the job of secretary is fully automated. Further, arbitrary numbers of Proedroi can take responsibility for cloning and preserving the minutes, building in multiple redundancy.

Also, Proedroi are required for things that computers can't do. A computer can't answer:
- "Does this proposal conflict with the rules of this group or any governing institution?"

e.g. MIT student societies are governed by the rules of:
- themselves
- MIT
- The state of Massachussets
- Uncle Sam

You aren't getting any computer short of SKYNET to answer that question. Hence the need for Proedroi.

Also, classically the Proedroi were the mods of Athenian democracy. It makes sense to me they should have tools to deal with abuse by the popular forum. We can't automate that either.

The only way I see to maintain your vision of a single tier platform, is for all of the popular forum to volunteer to be Proedroi. I don't wish to prevent this, but I see the secretary as the 'easy mark' to offload potential liability to, because the secretary will see the value in bombproof minutes more than most.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 8:44:08 PM10/14/18
to Democracy Foundation
IP address are not legal identities.

Accounts are not legal identities.

e.g. IP geolocation reports me ~500 miles from my actual location, and I have a dynamic IP.

To get the information about which account was using a particular dynamic IP at a particular historical time is practically impossible, because there's no money in the ISP preserving those records.

Even if you get the ISP account, you still don't know who was *using* the account.

And you can just punch out free email addresses on the internet. Also, if you get the password, or they don't log out properly, it's entirely possible to use someone else's email to register to anything.

But it's not really an issue of identity, the government pursuing tax evasion, by definition, knows who didn't pay.

The question is *why* didn't they pay? Their answer: the computer program you wrote told them not to.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 10:19:12 PM10/14/18
to Democracy Foundation
You don't seem to get that, by making an automated unregulated presiding officer, you *are* party to the decision.

The person who signs a blank cheque is party to the decision to devoid their bank account of the amount later written in the amount to pay.

When cheques are issued, there are specific instructions not to sign a check without first writing an amount.

I won't allow users arbitrary use of words, without them stumping up Proedroi to agree to pay out on my behalf if everything goes tits up.

For basically the same reason I wouldn't sign a blank cheque and leave it in a seedy bar.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 10:51:52 PM10/14/18
to Democracy Foundation
I know Greece has one of the few single-house legislatures in the world, but single house doesn't mean single tier.

All houses have a presiding officer, responsible to regulate and record the meeting. Nobody has figured out how to conduct a meeting on the internet without mods.

The Ancient Athenians couldn't figure out how to have a meeting without Proedroi.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Anyway, if you choose to make an unregulated, single tier, forum, you *can't* disavow responsibility, because the only person to choose how the meeting should be regulated is you.

I vaguely remember the pipedream paper you showed me, it's a pipedream.

In the real world, some people are closer to the rules, and others closer to the work. The profession of lawyer exists, purely because a man close to the rules has utility.

Classically, Proedroi were drawn by lots, from those of the popular forum who hadn't been Proedroi recently. I think we leave Proedroi selection to the group, excepting that there must always be at least one.

Likely the one will be the secretary, who is already on the hook for all decisions made anyway.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 11:37:24 AM10/15/18
to Democracy Foundation
So, I found a rabbit hole....

http://www.governance.uwa.edu.au/regulations/guild/registration-societies

I believe this framework is local to you, and fairly typical from what I can see.

If I could draw your attention to 10.1.9 (and 10.1.5 by reference), the society secretary is required to report any change in its:
- name
- objects
- secretary's postal address
- officers
- constitution
- rules
to a third party representative of the guild council.

Epitome could automate this process of reporting upstream, but if the Proedroi don't have mod power over which proposals get put forward, saboteurs can destroy the society by passing an unmoderated resolution against guild council rules, e.g. mandating censure for non-compliance in an initiation ritual.

Further, in
http://www.governance.uwa.edu.au/statutes/statutes/guild
The Guild Council president and registrar required to keep a bunch of formal records.

All these rules are fundementally incompatible with anonymous voting.

Non-students can't be ordinary members, but they can be associate members. An associate members may speak, at a general meeting, but may not vote. The secretary *must* ensure associate members don't vote on formal resolutions.

Thus, anonymous voting is impossible.

The guild council, student societies, partnerships, and companies all seem to work fine without anonymous voting.

The purpose of anonymous voting, while purported to be to protect the electorate from censure for expressing their honest opinion, functionally facillitates ballot stuffing, by making comparison between ballots non-trivial.

With an anonymous on-line vote, the secretary has no evidence the identity of voters was ever checked.

Summarising, instead of a single user role, I propose:
- officers (capable of limited unilateral action, verified by Proedroi)
- ordinary users
- associate users (no vote)
- upstream observers (no voice, no vote)

Also, forming a matrix, officers and ordinary users may volunteer to be Proedroi, gaining mod powers at the expense of being required to guard the minutes, and remove 3rd party liability from the devteam.

The fundemental problem I see with your upstream paper is that I don't see it allowing ordinary members to 'coast' by not volunteering to be Proedroi.

If someone doesn't want to play politics, they want to play tennis, and you make not joining the tennis society the only way they can play tennis without having to engage in politics, you lose subscription fees.

I hope you can see from my references, that these aren't just *my* ideas, they are the way things are done already, and the mechanism by which it can be formally recorded for witness by external parties that things were done properly.

You won't attract many users if you piss on these chips, they are not my chips, I just show them to you.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 16, 2018, 3:39:21 PM10/16/18
to Democracy Foundation
I think you misunderstand the role of an open source devteam. You are not technicians, you are engineers. The authors of the paper have not contracted you as closed source technicians, so nothing compels you to follow the code design of the paper without change. It is not the responsibility of the paper authors if you implement their code design.

It has already been implemented and has been running for years. It's called 4chan. Everyone is equal on 4chan and there is no moderation or abuse protection. 4chan is a meme factory, it is produces ideas that people like, rather than well thought out ideas people are sure they can live with.

The other half of the design is anonymous voting. Most countries don't have anonymous voting, because this renders audit practically impossible. If your country prints serial numbers on your ballot paper, the vote is not anonymous, but it is auditable.

A student society, club, company or charity cannot legitimately use epitome for decision making, without ratifying every single passed outcome at a properly minuted meeting, with multi-tier membership, and auditable voting. This increases administrative load, when the only way to sell epitome to users is if it decreases administrative load.

However, if users skip the ratification step (they might well foolishly assume that epitome would keep formal records), then the audit goes:
- How did you make the decision?
* We used epitome.
- What formal records exist that the decision was made?
* I don't know I didn't write epitome.

The fundemantal code design points that the paper misses, is that:
- there is no demand for collective decisions to be made *unauditably*.
- only people, not computers, can be responsible for keeping formal records.
- Pushing this responsibility to the users, makes a multi-tier user base, which changes the design from the paper.
- Forbidding users from taking this responsibility, keeps it with the devteam, who can't offload it to the paper authors without a formal contract.
- people are not universally interested in performing administrative tasks.
- people don't have unlimited time to devote to administrative tasks.

Your choice not to alter the code design restricts the potential userbase to only:
- people who don't understand the need for formal record keeping. i.e. fools.
- people who have unlimited time for administrative tasks.
- people who *love* filling in on-line forms.

The fact that these aren't frontend/UI code design issues, doesn't mean they aren't code design issues.

Georgios Mavropalias

unread,
Oct 16, 2018, 11:50:08 PM10/16/18
to democracy...@googlegroups.com

I like the idea for a password-less automated to a database on git. We are using SQLite if you install it on your system, we needed PostgreSQL for Heroku. However we are not going to enforce that on our users. Also, because this is open source and someone may not choose to have a distributed database, we need to have a ToS that our users need to agree with before they use the platform.


Please explain the abbreviations before you use them, what is AGM?


Moreover I will request we keep this civil and respectful. If you recall I’ve stopped chatting with you before because you were being rude. You must understand that not everyone shares your ideas, intellect or feelings about the matter. If you want us to discuss and find a solution (or create a new one) then lets keep the discussion civil and polite.


I really don’t understand why you keep bringing minutes as a necessary democratic element. Epitome is not going to be used in committee meetings, it is going to be used as a governance platform. Is there minute-keeping in a referendum? I would like everyone to have “mod powers” by being able to report ill-intended submissions and then an algorithm to decide based on the number and rate of reports. If you read the paper, you would see that it did include the power to report. It is not perfect, but it’s the first step to remove representatives and admins. This is the main goal of epitome. Allowing communities to be representation-less is its essence.


Additionally you know that I am not willing to change the design of the platform. You keep mentioning about moderators that you call Proedroi. Such people will not exist in epitome. We have a design of a system and we want to stick with it. More systems will be developed but we want to bring this one to life.


I understand that there is a need for administrators in the platform, but their job will be to maintain the software and apply the decisions relating to change of the parameters of the software. We will include a section which will log their actions and that information will be accessible by each member. I know that doesn’t limit someone with sudo access to the server to change whatever they want without being noticeable.


I am not against non-anonymous voting. I want to give the option to groups to be able to vote both anonymously and non-anonymously. I agree, non-anonymous voting would solve many problems.


We will not have subscription fees in Epitome. Everyone will be able to download it, install and use it for free.


“The authors of the paper have not contracted you as closed source technicians” which authors are you referring to? If you are talking about our whitepaper, we are the authors of it. https://github.com/TheDemocracyFoundation/whitepaper


I am willing to create a repository for you to start developing your own software, using your design principles and be completely independent on it, and be in our foundation to help you promote it. I like different philosophies and I would like to see them prosper and be distinct from each other like open source software are alternatives to each other but with different approaches to the same goal. In fact we’re planning to create a blockchain-based platform and we have already had some ideas to make it work. Would you be interested to have this as your personal project and design it according to your philosophy? I can give you some initial thoughts we had to help you if you’d like? We would still want your ideas and opinions on epitome and we’re very thankful that you have been posting them here, but I feel like you have great potential to create something. If you agree, it would be best to talk privately on riot.im, message me there.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 18, 2018, 9:52:16 PM10/18/18
to Democracy Foundation
"I really don’t understand why you keep bringing minutes as a necessary democratic element."

Because they're a *necessary* democratic element. You hit the nail on the head.


"Epitome is not going to be used in committee meetings, it is going to be used as a governance platform."

Governance is performed by committee.

The Canberra cabinet and parliament are committees.

The Perth cabinet and parliament are committees.

http://www.governance.uwa.edu.au/committees/senate
UWA senate is a committee committee.

These five committees can all pass resolutions governing all UWA employees and students.

There is no way these people are governed *other* than by committee. Anyone wielding unilateral power in a democracy wields it on sufferance of at least one committee capable of removing that power.

Even the Pope is elected by committee.

http://www.perthchessclub.org.au <- The chess club is governed by committee.

If epitome is not going to be used in committee meetings, it *cannot* be a governance tool. Except in North Korea, which is not governed by committee, and is also not a democracy.


"Is there minute-keeping in a referendum?"

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01022/Html/Text#_Toc465684490

Yes. *Lots and lots*. By law.

It is much more complex than a small committee, where a secretary takes personal responsibility to check memberships, count votes and write minutes.

It has to be, because the Electoral Commission isn't a person, thus can't take personal responsibility, and cannot attend parliament or court to personally answer for checking memberships and counting votes.

Without all ballot papers preserved for at least 6 months, and marked registers preserved for years, the Electoral Commission can't even provide a bad answer to a legal challenge against the legitimacy of its results.

Likewise, epitome is not a person, can't take personal responsibility, and cannot attend parliament or court to personally answer for checking memberships and counting votes.

What happens if someone appeals to the court to challenge or enforce an epitome outcome? Without any formal records, the outcome can only be considered illegitimate.

This isn't a problem, as long as nobody, user or otherwise, ever contests an epitome outcome. As long as everyone agrees it'll be fine.


"I would like everyone to have “mod powers” by being able to report ill-intended submissions and then an algorithm to decide based on the number and rate of reports."

We don't agree what democracy is. That doesn't mean either of us have ill intent towards the other or the project.

Nevertheless, you have mischaracterised me as being rude, merely for stating I have no faith in your epitome design as it is and will not code it.

People have prejudices, emotions and personal investments, and make bad decisions about what is ill intent, or rude, as a result.

If people make bad decisions, how can your algorithm make good decisions? An algorithm can't tell which decisions are bad any more than an algorithm can tell which comments need to be moderated.

Do you plan to write an algorithm, and then expect users *not* to game the algorithm to get preferential treatment for their contributions?

OSI died, because committee members prioritised gaming the system in favour of their contributions over making something good. It's what people *do*.

No-one took personal responsibility for OSI, because no-one had personal authority.

The bloaty result was more expensive and slower to implement and operate than the system it was supposed to replace (TCP/IP).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model


"If you read the paper, you would see that it did include the power to report."

Dividing mod powers evenly among a user group is not the same thing as providing a mechanism to ensure they are wielded responsibly.

Taking away personal responsibility is a very good way to persuade people *not* to act responsibly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment


"It is not perfect,"

Normally, mods are personally responsible for the decisions they make as a mod, and can be held accountable for their actions, potentially even having their mod powers removed for abusing them.

This is not perfect.

Your proposal, removes personal responsibility and personal accountability from all users.

No-one can have their report button taken away, no matter how hard they use it to game your algorithm, or troll. If this could happen, someone could become unequal.

A group without responsibility or accountability is a mob.

Moderation by mob is perfectly 4chan.


"it’s the first step to remove representatives and admins."

You can't remove representatives and admins from governance, and still have governance.

Minimally, admins are required to *take responsibility* for:
- moderating the meeting
- managing the membership list
- preserving the minutes

If we ask for Proedroi volunteers, this is easy. Everyone having the same opportunity to *volunteer* for the responsibility satisfies my sense of equal opportunity, but not your drive for absolute equality.

If you insist you must *force* these responsibilities on all users, you don't have volunteers, you have conscripts. Most countries have moved away from conscription, because conscripts are harder to train.

Minimally, representatives are required to:
- sign contracts e.g. for hosting to *run* epitome
- recieve and make payments
- recieve and deliver property
- maintain property
- execute group resolutions

A group, as a non-person, cannot do *anything* except pass resolutions.

epitome, as a non-person cannot do *anything* except record the passage of the group's resolutions.

If any person *executes* any resolution, they are acting on behalf of the group as a 'de facto' representative.

To have no representatives, no outcomes can be allowed to be executed, which utterly defeats any purpose in allowing any to pass.

If you forbid the group from taking any action, what is the existential point in having a group?


"I know that doesn’t limit someone with sudo access to the server to change whatever they want without being noticeable."

So, there will be someone who can be bribed to alter passed outcomes? And you don't think that's a critical security flaw requiring a redesign?


"We will not have subscription fees in Epitome."

Perth Chess Club charges $60/year in membership fees. Does this disqualify them from using epitome? Is it only for groups who don't charge subscription fees?

Are you aware that almost all groups who could use epitome charge membership fees and most of the rest collect donations? Tea and biscuits don't pay for themselves.


"If you are talking about our whitepaper, we are the authors of it."

I am not. I can't be if you're not changing the design to match the observed realities of democratic governance, human psychology and computer security.

mm0...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2018, 1:44:34 AM10/22/18
to Democracy Foundation
I should fill in the missed step.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_general_meeting

Deeper than an AGM, is a General Meeting. In a General Meeting, the membership can both question, and order, the officers.

Also, a GM can pass a resolution, which allows a random cunt, to be repaid for placing the order specified by the resolution.

There is also a technical adjusting device called an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM.) Typically, this is to revoke a presidential decision.

Normally, a president is a representative fit to legally bind their group to a contract by their signature.

This is why US Presidents get US Secret Service escort until they die. Their signatures can still 'post facto' bind the US federation.

I respect your wish to not have a president.

It is possible to have a group, where no-one has unconditional power to bind the group to an external contract, and the secretary opens and closes meetings.

i.e. It is possible to have a legitimate student society without a president, or a legitimate plc without a ceo.

So you can skip one of three cunts. That being president from (President/secretary/treasurer)

The real world will expect at least two cunts. One cunt (secretary) to attest to what the group has decided, and two cunt (treasurer) to attest to what the group owns. Theroretically these can be the same cunt, but that only works practically where the group possessions are of no practical concern.

You can call them cunts, because they are evil representatives, but they are *my* cunts because I expect to be short on volunteers, and I prefer volunteers to conscripts for the necessary administration positions.

The one cunt (secretary) is not only unskippable, but also required to be a qualified lawyer in a plc. Although, it can be any motherfucker the dumbass shareholders trust in a (Ltd/LLP/Partnership/Club)

If we do epitome, either we do it from the ground up, in a manner where there is legally solid records, for whenever the users choose to take their shit to the next level, or we waste everyone's time.

I apologise for Sam, but rest assured, that cunt uses less expletives.

Georgios Mavropalias

unread,
Oct 22, 2018, 1:16:44 PM10/22/18
to Democracy Foundation
Thank you for your message.

We don’t want to replicate the existing model, we want tor reinvent it. Even if democracy relies on minute keeping so far, we want to reinvent what democracy is and how it is conducted. Epitome is not a finalized system, it’s more of a prototype, an experiment, that will eventually lead to that new way of decision making. We are not interested in committees, we are interested in popular will. Many, not a few.

“You can't remove representatives and admins from governance, and still have governance.”

That is EXACTLY what we want to change. We want to remove representatives and intermediates and allow the will of the people to govern through systems that will express and distill it. You say that people will try to game the algorithms, but you also forget the very reason why we started epitome, because of the vulnerability and susceptibility of humans (moderators) to exploitation, manipulation and corruption.

“So, there will be someone who can be bribed to alter passed outcomes? And you don't think that's a critical security flaw requiring a redesign?”

It is. That is why I proposed the blockchain-based platform.

"We will not have subscription fees in Epitome." 

I meant WE. Me and the devs. People can do with it whatever they want in their groups and communities.

I know you are against our approach with epitome, and you fear that it might hurt us as developers, but we will continue with it’s current design. However I do understand your arguments, and I would love to incorporate a ToS that the user will have to agree with before using the platform. 

“The real world will expect at least two cunts. One cunt (secretary) to attest to what the group has decided, and two cunt (treasurer) to attest to what the group owns. Theroretically these can be the same cunt, but that only works practically where the group possessions are of no practical concern.”

If there are people who have those responsibilities in a group/community/committee/town/city/country or wherever epitome will be ever used, then they need to:
1. Give reports that will be accessible by team members
2. Carry out the member’s wish that will be outcome of the deliberation section (whitepaper)

However this is not for us devs to include in the code. Epitome is a tool, and groups need to use it (and customize it) according to their needs, and tailor it to their existing modus operandi. Do they have secretaries and tresurers? They can still use them. They do not? They can get some. They don’t want to get? Fine with me, their group their rules. I just make the tool, I don’t force you on how to use it.

I understand your desire to develop to a software that tries to improve online governance, since it is a matter that is dear to you, but our ideologies are different. If you don’t agree that a simple ToS is enough and you still think a secretary is necessary, then we can open a repository just for you to develop your own platform. However you must ask yourself, that which you want to develop, how it is different than what we already have? We know what epitome will improve and add, but with your conceived system, I don’t.

You are trying to change my mind for me to redesign epitome and ask my team to change course. We won’t do that, please understand. We have a design and some ideas that we will bring to life because we want to try this. People who want to join our team have to understand that, or they can simply start something on their own.

I have linked this document a lot of times, however THIS is how we’re going to create epitome and we’re sticking with it https://github.com/TheDemocracyFoundation/whitepaper

mm0...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 29, 2018, 2:10:37 AM10/29/18
to Democracy Foundation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis

If you want to revoke this, in order to make something new, could you please take the time to properly deconsruct it and define your problems with it?

Any democracy is ruled by those who count the votes.

A good example is made by Scotland ~66% turnout 2010 for the general election about whom has sovereign power over the law.
Yet 2014 ~85% turnout, because the No campaign won support with exactly the same campaign than Hillary could only tread water with.

This disproves psychology, beceause 2/5 habitual abstainers from 2010, decided to vote No, where only 1/5 abstainers decided to vote Yes.

Austraila is better off out. Far out from this fucking bullshit.

mm0...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 29, 2018, 5:04:31 AM10/29/18
to Democracy Foundation
"We don’t want to replicate the existing model, we want to reinvent it."

That's awesome. Try reinventing surfing with the same mindset. Expect as much success. Pretty sure you don't care about success

"Even if democracy relies on minute keeping so far, we want to reinvent what democracy is and how it is conducted."

Well... the fundemental point you miss, that Corpus Juriis Civiis fulfils, is who is to blame.

When you invent people who don't want someone to blame, when you don't blame me for my drunken comments, but instead accept the core principle that where a democratic system collates ideas to a whole... some cunt must accept reponsibility.


"Epitome is not a finalized system, it’s more of a prototype, an experiment, that will eventually lead to that new way of decision making."

You need to actually define that way. So far, I can only see you screaming 'This is not my idea.'

That is a fair thing to scream.

"We are not interested in committees, we are interested in popular will. Many, not a few."

How, exactly, can you possibly define the will of the many, without a process that refines it down to the few?

"That is EXACTLY what we want to change. We want to remove representatives and intermediates and allow the will of the people to govern through systems that will express and distill it."

Apparently by inventing a faerie magical system that will express and distill the will of the people, without letting anyone do the counting, or the moderation of what is allowed to be counted.

"You say that people will try to game the algorithms, but you also forget the very reason why we started epitome, because of the vulnerability and susceptibility of humans (moderators) to exploitation, manipulation and corruption."

You think this isn't an issue solved well enough, by the Athenians who fought for it, but better solved by your focus group... Huh. I'm skeptical.

"That is why I proposed the blockchain-based platform."

Sure, pretend you proposed that first.

'"We will not have subscription fees in Epitome." '

"I meant WE. Me and the devs. People can do with it whatever they want in their groups and communities."

Holy crap in a handbasket, in the first place, I thought you might want to make it *possible* for user fees to be collected, but this is impossible without a Treasurer to keep track of what the group owns.

"I know you are against our approach with epitome, and you fear that it might hurt us as developers, but we will continue with it’s current design."

That's the worst thing that can happen.

"However I do understand your arguments"

No, you don't. You think you can invent an agreement that *doesn't* fundementally depend on Corpus Juris Civiliis.

"and I would love to incorporate a ToS that the user will have to agree with before using the platform."

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

'“The real world will expect at least two cunts. One cunt (secretary) to attest to what the group has decided, and two cunt (treasurer) to attest to what the group owns. Theroretically these can be the same cunt, but that only works practically where the group possessions are of no practical concern.”'

"If there are people who have those responsibilities in a group/community/committee/town/city/country or wherever epitome will be ever used, then they need to:
1. Give reports that will be accessible by team members
2. Carry out the member’s wish that will be outcome of the deliberation section (whitepaper)"

That calls out the Prime Minister, Speaker of the House, and the Supreme Court Justice.

The executive, and legislative branches of government get to make formal requests. The judiciciary branch gets to make demands on your users.

"However this is not for us devs to include in the code."

Only on the grounds that the devteam wish to report to the judiciary, for whatever FUCKING STUPID decisions were made downstairs.

"Epitome is a tool, and groups need to use it (and customize it) according to their needs, and tailor it to their existing modus operandi."

And we need to understand their legal limits to choose.

"Do they have secretaries and tresurers? They can still use them."

Awesomesauce.

"They do not? They can get some. They don’t want to get? Fine with me, their group their rules. I just make the tool, I don’t force you on how to use it."

^ This is the blank cheque I'm scared of.

I don't understand why you and your fellow developers both believe in signing this blank cheque.

"I understand your desire to develop to a software that tries to improve online governance, since it is a matter that is dear to you, but our ideologies are different."

I don't think they are, you just don't understand and/or don't care that the software has legally similar requirements to the Electoral Commission as a non-person vote counter.

"If you don’t agree that a simple ToS is enough and you still think a secretary is necessary, then we can open a repository just for you to develop your own platform."

You missed the point at a heroic level.

The point of a secretary is to vouch, swear under oath, that the democratic vote happened, because they checked memberships.

Without a person to personally vouch, the Electoral Commission is compelled to keep reams of documentary evidence to prove that a democratic ballot actually occurred.

"However you must ask yourself, that which you want to develop, how it is different than what we already have?"

My *crazy* idea produces documentary evidence, sufficient to ensure the devteam are never even asked to take the witness stand to justify the decisions made by the users.

"We know what epitome will improve and add, but with your conceived system, I don’t."

So you want to be on the witness stand, justifying the ideas of random users?

"You are trying to change my mind for me to redesign epitome and ask my team to change course."

I think you're horrifically off course. What else should I do?

"We won’t do that, please understand. We have a design and some ideas that we will bring to life because we want to try this."

Between grow or die, you've certainly made a choice. I don't have to respect 'die.'

"I have linked this document a lot of times, however THIS is how we’re going to create epitome and we’re sticking with it https://github.com/TheDemocracyFoundation/whitepaper"

You're sticking with it? It proves you don't understand Corpus Juris Civiliis. The basic principle within, is that truth requires evidence.

Democracy typically requires a lot more evidence than peer review, because democracy typically collects significantly more data points than an opinion poll, and also provides evidence for a legal challenge.

You idiots pretending opinion polls are equal to democracy, simply because your genius code counts according to your genius design... disprove Stalin.

How many geniuses have you attracted so far?

How many users?

Who is the software *for* if it does not replicate the governance structures of law and academia? (Which require evidence for truth...)

mm0...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 29, 2018, 5:11:47 AM10/29/18
to Democracy Foundation

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 5, 2018, 6:37:03 PM11/5/18
to Democracy Foundation
In simple deconstruction;

You say your software produces 'outcomes' that are democratic.

Also, you want your users to be able to say their 'outcomes,' from their particular instances of the software, are democratic.

Both of these are legal/academic claims of the form "X is Y" where X is a noun defining a thing, and Y is an adjective defining a property.

If there is to be no evidence to substantiate these claims, then they are fraudulent.

The burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the claim.

If you refuse to supply proof on behalf of your software and users, despite having a degree and knowing evidence is required for proof, you're a fraud.

I don't want to associate with a fraud except to call them out as a fraud.

You could do better, if you were willing to accept your software design is not democratic, because it offers no proof to users that their 'outcomes' are democratic.

I know, the design will not change. I just won't believe you have the slightest clue what democracy is.

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 5, 2018, 7:49:57 PM11/5/18
to Democracy Foundation
'Representative-free' literally means you will not allow any legal defense of any outcome in any court of law, because to defend the outcome would *require* a representative to do the defending.

If you won't allow epitome outcomes to be defended, and cannot prevent them from being contested, what actual value do they have, given they're legally, and academically, false by default?

sam.on....@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 5, 2018, 9:40:13 PM11/5/18
to Democracy Foundation
If your software design, is democratic, despite no substantiative evidence, how can you claim Donald Trump's claim, that artificial global warming is a fictional fabrication, is false?

Donald Trump's claim is false, because it has no substantiative evidence to back it.

Normal software, merely involves authors making claims to users. This is not hugely complicated, because users can test the software. Thus they can adjudicate for themselves if it meets the author's claims.

Democracy software *necessitates* users having the ability to make claims to third parties, of the general form of: a specific 'outcome,' from the user's group's instance of epitome, was democratically generated.

This means that, their specific instance must generate evidence, specific to their case, to substantiate that claim.

Without any such evidence, any claim an epitome outcome is 'democratic' is fraudulent.

The world is used to douchebags like Trump making fraudulent claims. Who, really, is harmed by his ignorance? Can you claim you've been harmed by his nonsense?

If you were ever to get to the stage ov having users, they'd get to say they'd been harmed by your nonsense, just as soon as one of the 'outcomes' from your software is contested.

If everyone always agrees, this problem will never arise, and also this software design has no legitimate value.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages