Time spent in the system

The time spent in the DirectDemocracyS system, together with the points accumulated individually and in the various groups, is the best way to concretely evaluate not only individual users, but also groups.

But why is it so important for all of us to evaluate all activities, all behaviors, of everyone within our system? To know who to reward and who to punish, if a person doesn't break any rules, methods, or instructions, they have nothing to fear from these controls. They aren't abusive or invasive of privacy, and they analyze activities. Only if violations are detected are those responsible identified and the punitive measures provided for by our disciplinary regulations are taken. By analyzing everything, we can also reward our best members with approximately 33% of our revenue. Every official member and every user has always been verified, first by our system, then by our technologies and our artificial intelligence, which, like all our activities and all our potential, are the collective property of all our members. Furthermore, not only are they verified, but literally all activities by all our official members, by anyone, are verified according to very detailed implementing rules. From the most trivial things like a like or a comment to the most significant activities, everything is verified and evaluated, allowing rewards to be given to the concrete activities that are most beneficial to our system and its members. These security measures guarantee justice, legality, fairness, equal rules for all, and a genuine, declared, documented, and verifiable meritocracy.

Before continuing, a brief but fundamental premise.

As soon as we partially made our system public to a few carefully selected individuals, we publicly explained the importance of joining us as soon as possible by registering and creating a personal profile on our platforms. Just registering and creating a personal profile before anyone else brings enormous advantages and benefits, because if you meet all the requirements, you can be activated and begin working with us before anyone else. Seniority and continuity in DirectDemocracyS, as in any professional activity, is synonymous with reliability, loyalty, and respect for the rules. Obviously, those who have been with us longer and carry out more activities, compared to those who join in later phases, will have a higher number of accumulated individual and group points than new users who register in later phases. Continuity is mandatory for some user types, in order to maintain a higher level of membership and avoid being relegated to a lower level. Especially in the initial stages, many curious people joined us, but without continuity. They were often absent for long periods, and then they didn't perform the activities necessary to keep our enormous mechanism functioning. Whether someone has a free user level, with no obligation to attend and no voluntary activities to do with us, or a lower user level, with no obligations but no useful activities for the system, they don't accumulate the points needed to unlock certain potential. Therefore, even though they have seniority in DirectDemocracyS, having been registered for a long time, they often have fewer points than those who registered later. For this reason, seniority, continuity, and activity are important, as they earn points, higher user levels, groups with greater importance and responsibility , and, if deserved, even rewards based on concrete, declared, documented, and verified results. Seniority, continuity, and activity are of enormous importance for individuals, groups, and even for each activity. A person or group that performs certain activities consistently for a long time, more often, with declared, documented, and verified results, will be considered more expert; therefore, better suited to doing what they actually, unequivocally, know well. Intelligent people don't need overly detailed explanations, don't need quotes to understand a speech (those who overuse other people's words to explain certain concepts often do so to sound like intellectuals and generally don't have many of their own ideas), and don't need too many examples to understand what's being discussed. But in this case, we'll use a very simple example, one we use often, that explains the situation well. If you were hiring a babysitter, would you rather entrust this important task to someone who's doing it for the first time, or to an experienced one? Well, the child to be cared for is the common good, the parents are us citizens, and the babysitter is our representative. Those who know us are well aware that in DirectDemocracyS there are two types of representatives: the official ones who manage, represent, and verify our system. To prevent any potential problems, such as conflicts of interest, excessive power accumulation, and other reprehensible situations, we keep them separate and alternative to our political representatives. They first participate in our selection process for political representatives. The best ones then participate in our closed online primaries. If they achieve excellent internal results, they can represent our system, and therefore our users/voters, in external and real elections. If they win, they can represent DirectDemocracyS, and everyone else involved, in the various institutions. There are various informative articles that explain practically every single word, every single sentence, and everything we publish, in a system that makes consistency one of its strengths. As a babysitter for their child, every parent should choose the best person, the most suitable to care for the most important child they will ever have. Comparing children to the common good is not a trivial choice, but it makes you understand the importance we give to our system, and to everyone who is part of it, including those who have not joined us and perhaps never will. We must clarify a fundamental detail: anyone can apply to join us, and if they meet all the requirements, they can register and create a personal profile. And, according to very detailed rules, if they meet all the requirements at the various stages, they can be activated and will be able to access the areas of our platforms reserved for their type of user. These requirements, which must be met in the initial stages, are essential, because we are very selective, not only in who can join us, but in the role they can play in our system. DirectDemocracyS does not discriminate against anyone, but in the delicate and fundamental initial stages, when the foundations of our system have been, are being, and will be created, and therefore the foundations of our enormous common home, we do not accept just anyone, and we do not give just anyone the keys to every "room" of our house. Simply put, not everyone does everything they want, not everyone has the same roles (we've created dozens of user types and groups, including specialists), the same responsibilities, the same "power," and not everyone has the same potential. We believe in equality, which means equal opportunities , equal possibilities, and the same rules for everyone, but always combined, and continuing over time, with meritocracy, which makes our system fair, equitable, loyal, reliable, safe, and above all professional. Especially in the early days, when very few people knew about our system, there were people who joined us, hoping to know everything, have access to every area, and know everyone, join every group, and pursue their own interests, as in other systems. If we hadn't put the right people in the right places, if we hadn't had, and jointly created, very detailed implementing rules, if we hadn't implemented unity in diversity, if we hadn't rewarded the best and punished, if necessary, the worst, we would have been a system similar to all the others. We are certainly innovative, alternative, different, and better than everyone else, and we will always remain so, because we have created a system infrastructure that does not immediately grant everyone full potential. Only over time, with declared, documented, and verified individual qualities, with concrete and ongoing activities, and with results that benefit the common good, could, can, and will we be able to achieve a more important and responsible role. Only when all these more important and responsible roles are filled by the best, most reliable, loyal, honest, sincere, and most suitable—and therefore best—people will we be able to gradually, carefully, confidently, and selectively include everyone else. Each person has individual qualities and specific abilities, so each person is very important to us, indeed, fundamental, as long as they do what they do best to the best of their ability, and declare it, demonstrate it, and are willing to be verified. A phrase we often repeat: declare, demonstrate, and be verified. While in all other systems, most activities are conducted based on trust, or even a lack of trust, at DirectDemocracyS we are very pragmatic. Words aren't enough; we need complete and authentic documents, concrete activities, and everything must be verified. We don't rely solely on what someone says, promises, and explains; we want every necessary proof to prove the truth. Their every activity will be carefully monitored, and they themselves will also monitor others, based on very detailed implementation rules, respecting anonymity, and with truly effective privacy policies. Often, people who think they're smart, or those accustomed to doing everything secretly, in their own interest, fear these very careful controls. If a person respects every one of our rules, every one of our methods, every one of our instructions, which we've all agreed upon together, from the beginning, up to now, and in the future, they have nothing to fear. The only ones who fear controls are those who seek to exploit any system, in ethically and morally reprehensible ways. Everyone else knows full well they have nothing to fear, and they themselves control others to make the entire mechanism work. To better explain the previous sentences, you just need to look at and study DirectDemocracyS, not using all the other systems as a point of reference, because we, who created it and are its protagonists, can state with absolute certainty that we are completely different and better. It's not vanity, it's not ideology, it's not presumption, it's certainty, because we created the system that everyone would want to care for the common good, that was resilient, and impossible to misuse, that could repair itself, and that could prevent and optimally resolve any possible problem. DirectDemocracyS and everyone who is part of it have the potential and the necessary rules to make all the major problems of other systems very small, irrelevant, and harmless. This applies to all our groups, to all our activities, and to every person who joins us.

Those who join DirectDemocracyS later, and therefore later, at a later stage, face some disadvantages, but they can recover. The advantages and benefits gained by joining us before others are generally strategic, because in the initial stages, the process of joining important groups is simpler and much quicker. Those who join early have more opportunities to demonstrate their loyalty, reliability, and competence, and above all, they can accumulate a greater number of points both individually and in the groups they belong to. But all these qualities, all these advantages, benefits, roles, and superior user types in DirectDemocracyS must be earned, and above all, they must be continuously confirmed over time. It's not enough to join us before others, because every role, every user type, every potential, and every advantage, from the moment they are obtained, must be continuously confirmed through concrete activities that serve the common good. Our system was designed to be a massive mechanism, powered by users and groups who perform their roles to the best of their ability, according to rules respected by all. It doesn't take many hours a day, but for the higher-level users, 20 minutes a day, from everyone, every day, even through multiple logins per day, is enough, or, alternatively, at least 120 minutes a week, in one or more logins, on one or more days, to make our massive mechanism function perfectly. Of course, over the course of a year, each of our users can take about a month of "vacation," and therefore assign their roles in the various groups to others, because it is the responsibility of all group members to allow everyone else to "think about other things" and perhaps relax, on a well-deserved vacation, and then return with renewed energy to carry out their own activities. We often say it: the fun activities, or those you're most passionate about, in DirectDemocracyS are separate from the "mandatory volunteer" activities that every person with higher user categories must complete to make our enormous system work. In practice, the contribution to our system from certain user categories isn't just the annual fee (there's also a free user category with no obligation, but with less potential), but requires a continuous presence, and they must also perform necessary and useful activities for the common good, which are separate from their favorite activities. This willingness to help others is certainly a strength of our system, making us unique and inimitable. If every person and every group does their part, the system carries out every activity properly.

What if there aren't enough people, and enough groups, to carry out all the necessary activities? DirectDemocracyS doesn't depend on the number of people who join, and until our political representatives participate in external elections, it doesn't even depend on the number of external supporters. If there are few people, few annual fees, there are also few activities to carry out. As the number of people increases, the number of annual fees increases, and so do the minutes in which the higher-level users perform the necessary activities to make our mechanism, and therefore our entire system, work. But we can assure you that the number of people joining us on our platforms is constantly growing, and that almost everyone applies for, and if they meet all the necessary requirements, they obtain, the higher-level users , those with the greatest potential. Because, despite having fees to pay (very affordable and proportionate to income), and mandatory activities to be performed voluntarily for the common good, they offer greater potential and are therefore preferred over everyone. With this method and this resilience, we started with a few dozen people, created the fundamental rules with a few hundred people, and we will continue to do so with thousands, millions, billions, or even the entire world population. Everything is proportionate, everything is structured, and everything works regardless of how many people are part of it.