Strange but true

Giving an informative article the title: strange but true, it's certainly unusual, but if you continue reading we'll talk about ourselves, clearly and directly.

Let's not spend time justifying our decisions.

We like to answer every question in a detailed and direct manner, to clarify the rationale behind all our decisions. Our rules are all shared, voted on freely and democratically, and with exceptional security measures. We expect everyone who joins us to abide by them all, forever. This isn't meanness, but it's the only way to ensure our entire system functions flawlessly. Discussing everything openly allows us to clarify certain concepts, often repetitively, but always in detail.

Why don't we tell everyone everything, and have many things we keep to ourselves?

We often talk about complete protection of personal data and our activities, which are made public at the appropriate time, keeping some details private because they shouldn't matter to those who aren't involved. Allowing everyone to remain invisible and completely anonymous, both inside and outside our system, is a basic rule of ours. No one should care who does what, but the beneficial effects of what we do on everyone's lives.

In DirectDemocracyS, is the system more important than the people who make it up?

Our system is a creation of all those who participate in it, and is entirely collectively owned by all our official members. The results achieved for the good of all humanity are more important than the individuals, or various groups of individuals, who made these results possible. But don't worry, we know how to reward all the groups involved, and all the individuals who are members of these groups, all connected, all protagonists. We give them significant points, and we invest approximately 33% of all our money to reward our best official members. You won't find any dissatisfied people, because we like to respect and generously reward everyone's concrete achievements.

Official members have a lot of power, and by winning the elections, they will have even more, and could this be dangerous for freedom and democracy?

Literally anyone can meet the requirements to become our official member, and therefore own, along with all other official members, our entire system. Naturally, in the initial, more sensitive and vulnerable stages, we carefully select each individual who joins us to create a solid foundation and put the right people in the right places. In the later stages, more and more people will be able to join us and be the true protagonists. In the final registration stages, all the good people on earth will be able to join us and change and improve the world together with us. All power is shared with everyone, so we are not comparable to other systems, where a few are in charge and everyone else is powerless to obey orders. In DirectDemocracyS, everyone decides, everyone complies, and we do so continuously. There is no system more secure, professional, fair, meritocratic, just, loyal, sincere, honest, and with greater potential than ours. Anyone who uses logic and common sense will understand that we are the best choice, for the good of all.

Could bad people boycott DirectDemocracyS, slowing down and stopping this whole system?

Thanks to our rules, it's impossible for anyone, from within or without, to even attempt to sabotage us. No person or group can become too powerful and thus impose their own interests on the general interest, which for us is the entire world population. Our system was designed from the start to prevent anyone from being clever.

Maybe with just a few people inside, it's easier to enforce all the rules, but with so many people, will it be difficult to prevent every possible problem?

DirectDemocracyS is structured and designed to work and achieve excellent results with a small number of users, many, and even the entire world's population. Our rules and methodologies ensure we won't encounter any problems, even with a sudden increase in our users—the number of people joining us. There may be very brief interruptions to some services and websites until the space and power of all our web servers are increased, but this usually lasts a few hours or a couple of days, during which only the most important activities, managed on other web servers, would still be active without interruption. This is also one of the reasons we have four main websites, on various public, private, and secret web servers. Not to hide anything, but to protect our most sensitive areas, making it impossible for saboteurs and front men to infiltrate them.

And would security measures be weakened with so many users?

With more users, there are more people in special security groups, and potentially more people who can monitor and report every activity, from every group, and from every user, so that any necessary disciplinary action can be taken.

And the money needed to keep the system running?

With more people, come more annual dues, more private donations, more advertising contracts, and more financial and economic activities. Therefore, we do not have, and will never have, any liquidity problems, whether with a small or large number of users. DirectDemocracyS has financial management teams that follow our financial and economic strategies, which aim for maximum efficiency with minimal expense. We know how to spend wisely without unnecessary waste. Just one example: we don't have huge offices and a large staff; we prefer to use our own volunteers and have offices in the homes or apartments of each of our official representatives in each of our local groups. These cost-saving measures work regardless of the number of users we have.

And how will you carry out the many activities, if all your users increase exponentially?

More users means more people carrying out activities on a voluntary basis, so the various activities will not decrease, nor will the quality of each of them. In fact, as the number of users grows, the total number of minutes spent by everyone carrying out the various activities will increase. Many types of users (the most sought after by anyone who joins us) require their presence and carrying out various activities with us, at least 20 minutes a day (possibly multiple logins per day), or alternatively, at least 120 minutes a week (on one or more days, one or multiple logins per day). We repeat: more users, more people making our enormous mechanism work perfectly.

So many beautiful words, but you're still very few people, and very few groups. And above all, very few concrete activities.

The validity of a project shouldn't be judged by the number of people participating in the system at various stages. We don't know of any businesses that have started with so many people, right from the start. DirectDemocracyS grows continuously, based on our needs and desires. We often have to stop new registrations, activations, and even invitations, to accommodate and integrate all the new users, so we don't worry about growth, which might seem slow from the outside. Anyone who judges a project like ours based on the number of supporters is simply a "sheep following the herd," which is exactly the type of user we don't need in our initial stages. We don't need people who are superficial or too "important" to join us.

Why don't you publish the exact data for this "growth" which may not be as great as you describe?

We don't have exact, real-time data on how many people join us, because so many remain completely invisible; therefore, we can't release reliable data. Initially, when we had a few hundred people, we had a counter that increased based on new registrations. Unfortunately, with free registrations, too many unreliable people joined us, and we spent a lot of time blocking and deleting fake profiles, bots, and multiple profiles. Our counter went up and down, and some of our members told us we had to do something. We created much safer, more detailed rules to prevent any problems. We blocked new registrations for about nine months and "cleaned up" by deleting all fake and unverified profiles. It took a very long time, and we decided to eliminate the user counter, also because we had created various user types, which made it virtually impossible to get an exact number live. From time to time, many of us do count ourselves, and we publish some of this data, which is always partial and therefore not entirely reliable. We repeat, DirectDemocracyS doesn't want to be popular or famous, especially initially, because it's a new system, created from scratch. It has no pretensions of winning over the general public, but rather of bringing together competent , compatible, reliable, loyal, sincere, and incorruptible people. The concrete activities are the practice, and for an efficient, useful, and credible practice, a theory is needed, one that is as close to perfection as possible. We have many internal activities, very detailed and concrete, which will be made public and implemented, at the right time, according to our rules. Again, we ask everyone not to judge a book by its cover, but to learn about it from the inside, and many concrete activities will become known. A system similar to ours didn't exist before, and likely won't exist in the future. We didn't have an "instruction manual" to create such a system from scratch. We don't put the cart before the horse, but rather we do things with order, discipline, and an organization that pays close attention to every detail.

We hope we've clarified some details and answered some questions, often a bit repetitive, but helpful in understanding the complexity of our system.