Occupy Chicago

by **Billy** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:57 pm

     My previous post about the temperature check should eliminate a lot of this since proposals that are not even close to passing should not often make it to an actual vote. I will still submit this potential proposal.

     NYCGA goes for consensus on everything. They work towards that always and only do the 9/10 if they can not get something to pass by consensus and have tried very hard and know they won't get there.

     The previous being said I think the moderator should be able to bypass an actual vote count on stuff that is not even close. For example if something goes up for vote and it looks to be about a 50/50 split I see no reason why the moderator can't just say to the GA " this does not even look close to passing I would like to say that it does not pass is there anyone that disagrees? " If one person disagrees then the vote hands go back up and we count everyone.

     This could also be used on blow away votes. If you take no votes first and only two people raise there hand you know that all you need to pass is more than 20 people so if you see 200+ people raise there hands the moderator could just call it passed and again ask if anyone objects and wants to insist on a manual count.

     This is a procedure that relies on an absolute consensus to bypass normal protocol so I am not sure if this would need to be voted on either since there is no way it could get used unless everyone present agreed.

by **cyberconnect** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:03 am

I completely agree with the 'blow away' votes. Simply put, if it looks like there is no where near 90% of the votes, then a system such as this should be in place.

Also, perhaps to avoid the possibility of a single individual exploiting of the 'require a vote' clause, require some number larger then a single vote, yet still a very small number.

by **Billy** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:35 am

I'm a big fan of consensus and don't mind taking the time to vote on occasion if need be. If this gets abused regularly I think that can be addressed when and if it becomes an issue. I'd rather not make a lot of rules for stuff that isn't really an issue yet. But that's just me.

by **cyberconnect** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:02 am

The issue with a 'lack of many rules' system is of course, the possibility for abuse and exploitation.

Every system, be it political, statistical, biological, cosmic, mathematical, etc, is governed by rules which are put in place on the system. These rules are put into place to allow everything to work out, prevent loop holes, etc. This is all of course assuming that the system is designed to be a correct system (unlike the system in which our government runs on currently).

By limiting the number of rules on any system, you lower the initial complexity of the system itself. However, you open the door for more exploitation of the system itself. So in a governing system (which is essentially what is being developed here) the question becomes how lax do we be on personal spins on the system? A great example would be the 'time for debate'. Currently it is set at 2 minutes, a concrete, static, value. But if it was set at say 'a sufficient time' (a variable) then it allows for personal spin on it.

You are correct, that some rules could be simply used as 'common sense' rules. If you call a vote, and only 2 or 3 people vote against out of a large population, then there is no need to count exactly the number. However, what do you do when these types of rules, which would not be on paper, are called into question?

by **Billy** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:40 pm

     I disagree totally. I think systems with a large amount of complicated rules are more exploitable than simple ones. If you make a system so large and cumbersome that no one person can understand it in it's entirety then you have our current legal structure which is those who can afford the lawyers to twist and contort the language and selectively apply rules have all the power and the individual has none.

     I really think that we have a lot of stuff that needs to be worked on and wasting time on stuff that could become a problem but has not yet I see to be wasteful and counter productive. If something becomes an issue in the future anyone can propose a rule change at that time.

     I don't see how anyone can abuse the more flexible system that I proposed because every time it gets used it would require and absolute and total consensus. If one person does not want to go along we all follow procedure. That is your immediate and total check and balance.

     If we have 500 people and 250 vote yes and 250 vote no then the moderator says that doesn't look anywhere near 90% I call it not passed does anyone disagree. If one person raises their hand we count like we would have without this rule. Nothing changes. I can see no way for this rule to be abused. If someone wants to be a pain in the butt and make everyone count for the sake of it then we do. It is at that point no different than things are now. If everyone agrees we save the GA 10 minutes of counting and things flow smoother.

     If people are regularly forcing us to follow process to the letter by giving a no vote then we just stop using this potential short cut or we make a new proposal.

     If someone finds some way to abuse this that we can not see or predict at this time then we deal with that then when it does become a problem and we figure out what it is.

by **cyberconnect** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:37 pm

I feel from reading many posts that you and I have made towards one another, we have a very different idea on not only system structures, but also faith in fellow humans. I know that sounds off topic, but in the end, that is what it comes down to.

You propose that we keep rules to a minimum, and simply follow a '90%' rule. While there are other 'rules' in place, it seems that in the end, 90% rule always out rules them. On the other hand, proposals by the moderator can be undermined by a single individual.

I suppose I look at it in the way that there are always unexpected actions people will take. Take Friday night's GA. The individual making outrageous statements, totally disrupting, etc. You are giving that troubled individual the opportunity to essentially do as he pleases, while at the same time saying that the 90% can decide on anything, instead of having a system in place for such situations.

Exploitation in your system is the result. You either are allowing individuals to throw the system off track, irritate people, and in the end force a 'mob' action. It basically comes down to you are allowing that 10% to appear they have a voice, but can in the end be 'shut out' by the 90%.

------------

Also, to add one thing... I never said complicated rules, I simply stated rules that cover all possible situations. Legal law is complicated due to the language used. However that does not mean this system needs that. Something as simple as

If _______ Then _______

by **Billy** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:00 am

     I don't think we understand each other. That is one of the short comings of communicating in this forum format.

     In an attempt to clear things up a bit I think an important thing to note is that this process in Chicago is 16 day old as I write this. There is a lot of work that needs to be done and I think we need to focus on major issues before we work on stuff that has not happened yet. Not that those issues should never be address just that there is a need for prioritization in my opinion.

     My point about the absolute consensus for moderator ideas is that we have a process that everyone is familiar with to propose and vote on stuff. To modify that process we need to work with in it's current structure. I also think there are times where an effective moderator could wander outside of the structure of the format to make things clearer, fairer, more inclusive or what ever. Any permanent change in the process would involve a proposal which would not happen on the spot. If it is a one time thing that proposal could be a waste of time and if it catches on a proposal could be made later. But my point was that in the moment I think it should be ok to violate process in some cases if the entire group agrees by consensus.

     The example that I used here was that manual counting takes a long time. The process states that we need to count. There is nothing wrong with counting each and every person. But in the interest of time if a vote is about 50%/50% I see no reason to have to take 10 minutes to count 500 people to come out with 250/250. I also don't think we should ever give the power to anyone one person to decide what is close and what isn't.

     I proposed to allow the moderator to use his/her discretion to make the process more efficient but with a check and balance. That check and balance is the absolute consensus.

     I did not recommend consensus on things that are done with in the current frame work of the process. I did not say that if the moderator came up with an idea that worked well it could not be submitted and turned into part of the process. I simple suggested that it might behoove us to allow the moderator some room to do his or her job with a huge check and balance in place to make sure that it not get abused.

     I hope this clears up what I viewed to be a miss-communication and if I am still confused please set me strait on this as I do value your input and am truly looking to understand.