Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

Post by martin-t » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 1:42 AM UTC

clcaev wrote: post #159

martin-t wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not even sure what technocratic leadership means. For one, I don't believe people should need to be led. Being led makes sense when quick decisions are more important than optimal decisions, such as in war. Other times, people should be free to lead their lives as they wish. Another thing: experts can explain their opinions. I cringe every time I see a political discussion without a white board, diagrams, graphs…

It was a lovely discussion and made consider other approaches, thank you. Sadly, I’m must leave the conversation now. I’m very ill these past few years and am unlikely to recover. I suggest reading Elinor Ostrom’s book, Governing the Commons. It describes fundamentals of successful cooperative organization. Specifically, successful cooperatives don’t grow bigger, they replicate bright spots while staying local and sm…

Post by Nathanba » Thu, Feb 19, 2026, 12:12 PM UTC

patrickmay wrote: post #114

Nathanba wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand about Polis though is who is creating these less biased polls full of unbiased positions that people can vote on? It takes a lot of intelligence and wisdom to even formulate a question that isn't tainted by layers and layers of political innuendo. You can't just put something like "Do you believe in the rights of the unborn child?" into a system like this and expect quality outcomes. I guess t…

Many (most?) issues don't fit on a single dimension. Using your example, people hold positions that include "Absolutely!", "Yes, but also the rights of the mother.", "Yes, but I won't impose my beliefs on others.", "No, but I don't think people who feel otherwise should be forced to pay for abortions through taxes.", and many others. In addition to the problem with biased questions you note, there are often built in…

Post by mejutoco » Sun, Feb 22, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

econ wrote: post #137

mejutoco wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are capable of writing correctly. Source: your post. If someone cannot be bothered, why should we bother to read what they have to say? I think it is a good signal. EDIT: plus it is not an allow or not allow. The more errors the more downvoted, so it is a small adjustment.

You shouldn't care about presentation but others will. I think an llm approach could be good. You make suggestions in however insane language and it converts the format to something boring and mundane accepted by all clients. Some people are to brief, some elaborate more than necessary.

Post by keybored » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #164

keybored wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If some moneyed elites as well as associates that are high up in culture, science and similar decide to make a network based on enslavement, child molestation, human trafficking, rape, and torture, does that make it okay/good? Oh wait, that already actually happened.

Are you claiming that was a good thing? Your argument doesn't make any sense in the context given. My entire point is some things are absolutely wrong, even if a majority of people would support it. Your point above does nothing to counter that argument.