Five thousand years ago, creating “justice” systems was the agenda of kings in Mesopotamia and other places.
In a democratic election citizens make decisions without them needing to give explanation.
Polling is making decisions without any need for explaining.
The rule in democracies is secret ballot – in authoritarian regimes the vote is not secret.
Judging is making a decision :
– respecting a procedure
– building the information for the decision – enquiry, etc.
– with arguments based on the information
Author : Chris Bois
Transparent polling is good for destruction !
The matter is very simple.
I tell you a true story that repeated over and over.
A Black Knight decides to kill an innovative article based on published reliable academic research work.
He knows that other Black Knights are always ready to give him a hand.
He votes “Kill !” … the article.
The White Knight gives arguments that the article follows the rule.
He votes “Keep !” … the article.
Because the polling system is transparent – contrary to the democratic secret ballot – all the Black Knights know the vote of the White Knight.
They launch attacks against the articles created by the White Knight.
The White Knight knows that he will never vote “Keep” again !
When a Black Knight decides to kill an innovative article based on published reliable academic research work.
He is sure to win beforehand !
Either secret ballot or the rigor of a jugement
If secret ballot cannot be installed – why ? – the only way to limit the destruction of innovative articles based on published reliable academic research work is to put the pressure of procedure on the Black Knight.
I experienced that in other contexts it is very efficient.
Judging needs the rigor of procedure
It is simple to impose to Black Knights the rigor of a normal prosecutors’ job.
If the Black Knights don’t follow the procedure the vote is cancelled by an administrator. (1)
It is very simple !
Presently the Black Knights don’t have any rules to follow.
(1) In many countries a court judgement can be quashed for procedural violation.
See California Supreme Court for example.