1. I provided the white paper, and an article summary, of non dual consensus building, as well as a video walkthrough.

The project is part of a DAO and that is located here www.bigmother.com

2. Nullable Boolean is NOT ternary logic. Ternary paraconsistent logic is used in quantum mechanics, because it needs to account for the whole system, all states at once. Null, true, and false simply does not do that.

We apply 0, 1, and 2 as both a logic AND an organizing principle.

3. My entire life has been social media since 2005, I am an early pioneer in social media audience acquisition, viral marketing, etc, this process has evolved along side social media.

4. ““The rules are strict, but easy, you have to be honest…” (your words in the video), this wholly contradicts your other point about it wanting you to game the system. “

Huh? If I ask you to game that, that means that you could try to lie in the room where honesty is crucial, and you could see if you could get away with it. What do you think I mean?

5. All viewpoints are biased, I am not sure why you are attributing responses to me that I would say other wise.

6. I think you’re getting stopped seeing the big picture because you are assuming the platform is making a decision, and it isnt.

If I believe something is toxic, and you don’t, we have a conflict of idea that the system assumes we will have.

Not sure why you keep assuming there is no bias???

7. This process is decentralized down to two individuals who have a disagreement. THEY decide the outcome, no one else.

8. Its probably wise for you to turn some of your claims about the process into questions about the process. For example; “When you get to “The Consensus”, “The Parlor Room”, “The Speculation,” you never point out how we actually got here by any logic, and again has nothing to do with any determining factors (e.g. honesty, deception).” this question makes no sense to me.

What do you mean “how we got here?” a consensus article is like a contract. If you want to influence the contract, you will participate, especially if there is a stake in the contract.

9. Would you like a live demo over a zoom ? I think you will see that you’re making a number of factually incorrect assumptions about the process.

10. If you really wish me to “prove you wrong”, fine.

This conversation began with me suggesting that the blogger did not account for the “flooding of the zone with shit” which is the intentional broadcast of bullshit for a political or social outcome.

You claimed my response was “flawed pro censorship” logic.

I demonstrated, with proof, of an entire system for consensus building that I have designed that both addresses the “flooding the zone with shit” problem WITHOUT censoring any voice whatsover.

You’re still on some strange journey where you want to force me into some black or white (or boolean, ha!) position on freedom of speech.

I am not interested in changing your mind, or what you believe, at all.

11. “ Sheesh. I really wish you the best of luck on your project.”

Thank you, secretly I know you love it :)

And I think you mean "I really wish you well on your NON CENSORING project" :)

Thus, this conflict is now resolved!