Rethink Delegation of Votes

A credible measure of support for a camp would be limited to those who directly support it, on the basis of their own thoughtful consideration.

The Canonizer system permits "delegation" of support from one user to another. The tally of support votes include both direct and delegated support.

It is the position of this author that a credible analysis of support for a particular camp position would not and should not include the "support" of those who "delegated" the right to cast their votes to another.

This, of course, would depend on the values and objectives the Canonizer subscribes to and promotes where such considerations are at play.

Is the Canonizer an objective support site for credible research, or is it an activist site, whose purpose is to generate the contrived appearance of manipulated consensus in favor of its own hidden agendas and the hidden agendas of its clients who may subscribe to the service precisely for assistance with projecting a false (manipulated) appearance of consensus driven by non-organic incentivized support to justify decisions and public policy that cannot be rationally defended, otherwise?

We reject the latter as an offense against cosmic consciousness, and against the public. If the system is not about organic consensus and objective quests for truth based on legitimate standards of truth, then it does not serve the human family, but rather, undermines their interests.

If the motivation of the founders is to promote and market their professional skill at manipulating dialogues with specious obfuscation and a false showing of incentivized support, it is not a benefit, but rather an immature continuation of the scourge to humanity that is already under way in the form of warping consciousness to serve hidden agendas.

See also: Unethical Collaboration