Talk:Pirate Underground

Pirate Underground

Growth

• How do we want to advertise that we exist? Sacha Oct 25 2012
  • We could simply send out an email with a link to the Pirate Underground wiki page. --Erixoltan (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2012 (EST)
• That will work. Do we want to put it on the facebook or the twitter as well? Sacha 12 November 2012

• What is our strategy for growth? --Erixoltan (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2012 (EST)
  • My suggestion would be to target potential pirates who are in states without active parties or talk of establishing a party. If we can get the list of those who signed up to hear from the website when there were enough people who wanted to establish a party, or if we can get some sort of advertisement on the USPP website, that could help. --Lukas Kelly Nov 11 2012
• Look at this. French Pirate Revolution QuazarGuy (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2012 (EST)
  • I think that what Lukas said is a good idea. I'm helping to make the new website and I want to have a get involved space which discusses active committees. I think we can put something there for sure. I also think a big thing will just be getting results. If we are able to work more fairly, more true to our values, and more efficiently than the PNC then we will simply come to replace them. So basically results

Focus

• What do we want to focus on? How big do we want to make this? Sacha Oct 25 2012
  • We should start with a narrow focus and widen it later. Priorities include asynchronous meetings, policy formation and attracting more people to this effort. --Erixoltan (talk)
• I added a theory section and I think that exploring our values and what it means to be the pirate party needs to be an emphasis at some point. I do not think that the USPP understands what our approach to the government or party politics is so people are confused. Sacha 12 November 2012

Asynchronous Meetings

• Here is what I think that we can do. We can use the discussion page just make sure that you sign your talks and we can all use one bullet point. So for example if I was first I would use one '*' next person does '**' to reply and then I reply with '*' to them. We can make up different topics by using '== ==' etc. So '='Meetings'=' '==' discussion '==' and '==' members '==' like that. Sacha Oct 25 2012
  • Sacha I think that's a good idea. --Erixoltan (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2012 (EST)
• How do we vote asynchronously using a wiki? We could go in and post votes right here. I will do that below in the policy section. Please add a vote there, so we can see if it works. --Erixoltan (talk)
• Danger of cheating. We really need software for asynchronous meetings. If we post votes here, then someone could go in and change them. Someone could also go in and tamper with the discussion. In the meantime, we have to be on the honor system. --Erixoltan (talk)
  • I don't think vote tampering is an issue. If it is suspected, the history is there and if it's an admin tampering there are other admins who can undelete things. QuazarGuy (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2012 (EST)
• We could use the forums or another site for voting. I think that it is best to use multiple modes of discussion. I don't think we need to trap ourselves into one system. Sacha Nov 12 2012

Policy

• How would we even begin to establish the foundation of an economic policy? I don't think economics is something we should have a very set and specific stance on, but that's what the American populace wants to hear about at this point. Many people won't take our issues very seriously when the economy is their first priority and they will continue to support the candidates who have the economic answers they are looking for. In my opinion, a bottom-up/demand-side approach seems to fit our current values. Not only does it sort of parallel the grass-roots style of the party, but a distinct stance against trickle-down economics follows post-ideological meritocratic values and our general anti-corporatist stance. --Lukas Kelly Nov 11 2012
  • I think that we need to look at how our ideals would play out in the economy. How would equality, meritocracy, and scientific reasoning play out especially. I also think that we can work on having flexible policies. Sacha Nov 12 2012
    • I agree that our policies would be flexible. I think the nature of post-ideology would mean that we avoid staunch approaches and overly-comprehensive approaches. Perhaps, because economics is much more scientific than, say, social welfare, we should have a subcommittee within the policy committee devoted to economic research. While democracy and popular involvement are central to our values, economic policies should not be decided by the average person using "common sense". To be taken seriously, and to remain scientific, I feel that it's necessary to support everyone of our individual economic policies with legitimate studies. Lukas Kelly Nov 12 2012
  • I completely support having a subcommittee focused on that or at least (if we do not have enough people) using scientific evidence to create a policy. Sacha Nov 13 2012

Asynchronous Policy Formation

• Normally you have a proposal and vote on it. If it passes, you adopt the policy. In an asynchronous meeting, the vote could be against today but in favor tomorrow, as more people join and vote. We should therefore keep a running tally, and prepare to have proposals possibly float in and out of favor over time. --Erixoltan (talk)
  • Therefore I propose that as a temporary measure, we put votes directly in the wiki discussion page, and are on the honor system not to edit them. Until we have better software. All in favor place an "aye" vote below, preceded by "***", and sign it. --Erixoltan (talk)
    • aye--Erixoltan (talk)
    • aye--Lukas Kelly 11/17/12