United People is a different kind of forum. The members are expected to moderate themselves and each other. Most of us aren't used to doing that. We've always had "authorities" over us that we relied on to keep us in line. At UP, there are no authorities. The power lies with the people.

So how do we exercise that power?

Members have been complaining about other members. It's time we had an avenue to address those complaints.

This is an experimental mechanism for members to discipline other members. It consists of a 48 hour suspension of forum privileges. Any member that polls at 75% or greater will be suspended. At least one quarter of the membership or 10 members, whichever is greater, must vote on an individual for his poll to be valid.

Voting is anonymous, and you can change your vote at any time. Each poll runs continuously, never closing, although it will be reset after any suspension. If a member does not have a poll running, any other member can create one at any time.

I think the idea is good Chico; however, I also think it needs to be tweaked a bit.

IMO, we can't afford to have secretive ballots. If we have a vote, then we must stand up for it and be counted. That is merely balancing full rights with full responsibilities. Secretive balloting can invite all kinds of no-gooders to create disruption of the process and gang-up on individuals they want silenced ... for a week ... then the next week ... and the week after that just by inviting more of their Faustian ilk to register and tamper with the voting. As it were.

Two, I think 3/4 majority is too close to the 50-50 hinged tyrannical majority that you once described not so long ago in a post at Nexus. The one sigma majority of 84.1% (on the Bell curve) gets us closer to the maximum consensus majority of unanimity ... at least, it takes us farther away from the 50-50 hinge and minimum consensus majority a.k.a. tyrannical majority.

For 100-member sample:
50% ... is 50 vs 50 ... which yields a ratio of unity ... and a flip of the coin.
69% ... is 69 vs 31 ... which yields a ratio of 2.23 (half-sigma)
75% ... is 75 vs 25 ... which yields a ratio of 3 (proposed by Chico)
84% ... is 84 vs 16 ... which yields a ratio of 5+ (one sigma)
97.7% ... is 98 vs 2 ... which yields a ratio of 49 (two sigma)

As you can see, one sigma majority is a much stronger consensus than half-sigma majority which is only slightly less consensus than 3/4 majority.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts on the matter. Secretive balloting takes away responsibility ... and if we're going to construct a planar organization, then we need to be fully responsible for it ourselves.

All the best.

This is good because it generates from the group. This would also clear up and set a basis for constructive critiscism.

I would ask that the member who is polled make a statement to the effect of what their take is. I will start a pole on myself because I think some critisism is warranted here we just have to make a distinction.

One more thing: how does one make a pole? Let me know and I will set fourth thanks Chico.

The secret ballot is necessary to minimize bias and peer pressure. When we use representatives, their votes must obviously be public, but when the people vote, their votes must be private.


I'm glad you remembered. I've always argued for a high consensus somewhere between 75 and 85%. I usually settle for 80%, but I have recognized the mathematical elegance of 84%, which you proposed during our discussions at Nexus. Nevertheless, for the purposes of a two-day suspension, I chose the lower level of 75% consensus. Why? Because it is essentially a vote of no confidence, and such votes use a lower threshold (typically a simple majority) than constructive decisions designed to start something new.

In other words, to add new legislation should require "high" high-consensus, and to take away legislation that already exists should require "low" high-consensus.

In an era where government legislation has become excessive, isn't that an interesting idea?

It's easy. When you start a new thread, you enter your post in the text editing box. Below the text editing box is a section for adding a poll. You just enter the poll question ("Should dsimon3387 be suspended?"), add the possible choices on separate lines ("Yes" on one line, "No" on the next), and then check the little check box allowing people to change their vote.

Ok done...I put dsimon without the 3387 so if anymore dsimon's come here and cause trouble... I hope they don't blame me

I understand the point, Chico, but I disagree. While it may minimize peer pressure, on the one hand; it provides cover for unsavory group dynamics, on the other. Secret ballots are isomorphic with secret societies. The latter allow psychopaths to organize without scrutiny and transform the limited power of small eddies to evolve into the controlling power of whirlpools. On balance, transparency and planar organization lose ... to the profit of secrecy and hidden pyramids.

Gangs form with or without secrecy ... the lesser evil is when they form without secrecy. The argument of peer pressure wins protection for the individual but at the fatal expense of group transparency. To wit, the greater good has more to lose with secret ballots than any one individual can gain with the argument of peer pressure.



Yes, excellent point. One with which I agree. To try something not yet endured is a different proposition than to remove something already endured. The former inquires the choice of multiple pleasures whereas the latter inquires the quickest removal of the single pain. The priority and haste of healing wounds over the hesitancy to inflict them. The rush to find a solution versus the sloth over inviting a problem. As it were.

I see your point. So the problem is not really the secrecy, but the forming of manipulative but non-genuine coalitions. Along the lines of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, for example. So I believe that is the real problem we face. Do you have any solutions to suggest? I always prefer a real solution to choosing between the lesser of two evils. We need only look at the typical presidential race in the USA to see how well choosing between the lesser of two evils works.

True enough, but this exists in the human condition. 10,000 ... 50,000 ... or billions of years of evolution (as attested to by some New Age number crunchers) ... has not arrived a human species that has transcended this behavior. So the problem can't be fixed at the source and must be deferred to the environment. The structure of organization, as it were, holds the solution ... and secrecy just compounds the problem.

Another point to consider, the accused has the ethical right to face their accuser(s) and would-be executioners.
No system that operates in anonymity can be trusted to deliver justice to a face ... by a faceless committee.



Transparency may not be the whole solution, Chico, but it is a necessary component. If we have the right to condemn, then we must forfeit our right to anonymity.

I think it is the proverbial 6 of one half dozen of the other> you gain certain things from a secret ballot and lose certain things and the same applies with a ballet that is not secretive.

I do think in this case that with 30 members we need not worry about cabals, but I can see an argument for either type of ballot at this point.