

How do you deal with competitors, people who want you to fail, in open systems? -  jgilliam
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2009/05/how-do-you-deal-with-competitors-in-open-systems/

======
dave_au
You could duplicate the system - so you have something like "White House 2"
and "anti-White House 2" - try to get each group to focus on getting their
ideas / facts / opinions organised rather than on sinking each other ships. 

It'd potentially stop each of them from polluting the other, although you'd
probably have to have somewhere designated as middle ground for those that
want to debate things. 

There are other ways to partition the two groups, but having a way for them to
come together as well would be interesting.  If as well as "Endorse / Oppose"
you had "Thought provoking / not" then you potentially slip the more thought
provoking ideas from one area across to the other (tagged as having come
across from the other side). 

You might have to start a new set of comments when it moves across so the old
discussion doesn't get derailed, but at least it lobs various ideas over the
fence. 

------
dantheman
I think the example provided is quite flawed.  No one wants government to fail. 

The argument is: What is the purpose of government and there are multiple
views and perspectives on that.  The question, is then how do we work together
when we disagree on the purpose and final goals. 

In general the best way to do that is through a federalist process, where
thing that all agree to bubble up to provide uniformity, where people feel
strongly and are in disagreement allow them to self-segregate and then agree
in their local area. 

The problem with the government example is that by definition you are pointing
a gun at someones head to make them do what you want; whereas competitor's are
competing for mindshare of voluntary actors. 

~~~
cschwarm
I think you got a point, namely that the initial question is flawed, but I
don't agree entirely.  Anarchists might want no government, at all. 

However, even anarchists could participate on the side, for example by making
a general suggestion ("Remove the government.")  or by making particular
suggestions ("Remove taxes", "Remove legislation", etc.).  So I'm not quite
sure what the original blog post is really about. 

After studying the side -- and I find the idea quite interesting --, I think
there are some flaws in the basic design.  For each suggestions can have at
least one counter-suggestion.  For example, the counter-suggestion to "End the
Drug War" could be "Continue the Drug War".  Strictly speaking, everybody is
then probably going to make two votes, endorsing one and opposing the other. 

In fact, every topic may have several distinct proposals.  For example, the
topic "Drug regulation" may have the proposals "No regulation, at all",
"Regulate hard drugs, but not marijuana.", " Regulate on a local level",
"Regulate all drugs, even alcohol and tobacco", and many others.  In such a
design, nobody needs to vote against a proposal. 

Another point, although this one is going off-topic: As a European, I find it
hard to make any informed decision on many of the topics.  I guess, even as a
US citizen, I would probably have the same problem, too.  For example, what do
people really mean when they suggest to "End the drug war"?  Stop regulating
drug ownership?  Or allocate less money on drug law enforcement?  A suggestion
needs a proper explanation what activities are suggested. 

Next, why should I have to browse through thousands of opinions to read about
the arguments for a certain proposal?  A argument needs no header, no author,
no date, no discussion (as long as it's a correct argument) and I don't care
how many supporters found an opinion helpful. 

It certainly need no comments such as "Think of how much money and resources
it took in 2007 to arrest, incarcerate and process the 800,000 citizens
arrested for marijuana related offenses alone!"  Well, how much money and
resources were spend in 2007?  I don't know.  Why not just give me the facts:
"According to the study by <institution>, 5 billion dollars were spend on
arresting citizens for marijuana in 2007.  This money could have been spend on
real criminal problems."  This is an argument, although people may disagree
with it. 

Next, the idea of votes is probably flawed, too.  There is no costs when
supporting a proposal except time.  Active people will have more influence by
voting for lots of proposals, while less active people have less.  A non-vote
thus has two meanings: "I don't care" as well as "I have had no time to care,
yet".  I'd probably find it better when everybody gets a fixed amount of votes
that can be spend anywhere.  This way, spending 5 votes for a certain proposal
makes me loose my ability to support other topics.  Everybody will then be more
careful where to spend his or her votes.  Votes should be movable so when I
change my mind, I can express that by moving votes out of certain suggestions
and into other ones. 

Of course, double accounts might become more of a problem.  But, on the other
side, it already exists with the current design. 

This way, any political area -- such as "Drug regulation" -- can have an
overview on all alternative proposals, including their relative support by
participants. 

I'm not sure if my thoughts are helpful for the blog author.  However, I
certainly would find an alternative design more useful, more interesting, and
I would certainly participate if I were a US citizen. 

~~~
dantheman
Anarchists are in a difficult situation because with their views, there is no
justification for any federal level. 

As for end the drug war, you'll find people all across the spectrum.  I stand
on the side that the only drugs that need to be controlled are those whose use
weakens its effect -- for instance certain antibiotics need to be controlled
so that super bugs don't develop.  Everything else can be legal. 

------
DanielBMarkham
That's a good question, Jim. 

Instead of going with your example, which could get partisan in a hurry, take
a look at IT projects.  Ever been on an IT project that shouldn't exist?  Say
something that's not going to help anybody, probably won't even be released,
and is going to waste a lot of time and money? 

What do you do?  How do you have a rational conversation about making something
good when there is a legitimate view that it shouldn't exist at all? 

I think you get it out in the open, talk it out, and rhetorically have at it. 
Then you put it away and leave it alone.  Perhaps you could have a special
section of the site for "why do this at all?"  posts.  People who kept venturing
into that no-man's land could be directed there, instead of rehashing the same
debate over and over again. 

I'm with your competitors: government is a necessary evil and I do not wish it
to successfully intrude into all areas of my personal life.  But I can see your
point too -- if we're going to do something, we can't make progress if some
don't want _anything_ to work. 

So I say respect the dissenters, let them have their say, but don't let them
ruin your momentum. 

------
anamax
There's a huge difference between someone who doesn't want govt to succeed and
someone who doesn't want your vision of govt to succeed. 

> Many view government as competition to private industry and their own
> freedoms, so a failed government is a good thing. 

And then there are the folks who view your vision of govt as a threat to their
liberties and so on. 

There are two reasons why someone might "confuse" those two groups.  I wonder
which one applies here? 

~~~
jgilliam
Correct, that's why I'm making a distinction between them.  How do you deal
with the people who don't want government to succeed?  I'm not asking how do
you deal with people who may have a different vision for how government can be
successful.