Updates

The ombudsman, as it stands, is a shark without teeth. It cannot even smell a scandal if it was bleeding before their eyes — can’t sense, can’t bite, can’t act, can’t fix. It’s a watchdog with no jaws. So let’s give it an upgrade or even better give the government such an upgrade that Ombudsman loses the necessity for their entire existence.

This isn’t some grand ideological revolution. It’s just a silly idea for a public ticket system. Silly, but powerful.

Imagine a civic ticket system — not buried in obscure forms, not locked in back-office email chains. Just like an internal help-desk, but for governance. Public, structured, traceable. And smart.

This is what it looks like.

Core Idea
Citizens should be able to report issues publicly — not buried in anonymous inboxes, not hidden behind “ongoing investigation” seals. People already talk about public issues. If people can talk about public issues with their friends, why can’t they track them together too?

A government ticket system could work just like internal systems in IT or customer service — but with a civic twist.

This is not a place for endless debate. It’s a structure to frame problem → proposal → response, cleanly and traceable.

This system proposes a transparent, iterative problem-solving interface where AI is used not to obscure, but to clarify.

The System: Public, AI-Structured, and Transparent

The system is made up of 4 stages — and yes, it uses AI — but only as a tool to help people sharpen what they’re already saying.

Every issue goes through this cycle:

1. Problem Description
a) Citizens submit an issue. b) The AI cleans up the language, consolidates overlapping inputs, and upgrades the coherence of the report. c) A public change-log shows the input that evolved the description — all steps visible, all input attributable.

2. Proposed Solution
a) Based on the refined problem description, the AI drafts a solution or possible action path. b) This is visible to the public as a formal response — no magic, just structured reasoning. c) This is not a decision. It’s a draft — structured logic, not authority. Only advice.

3. Critique Layer
a) Citizens respond to the proposed solution — a structured challenge to the proposal.. b) Their remarks are also structured by AI — not censored, but upgraded for clarity and grouped by theme or angle. c) Again, change-logs and input trails are visible. No anonymous edits. No hidden manipulations. d) in a sense this is the same as step 1 (problem description)

4. Upgraded Solution
a) The AI integrates valid critiques and proposes a refined version of the solution. b) This is the “feedback-reinforced” stage, where the system attempts synthesis, not endless argument loops.

All stages remain visible — including abandoned tickets, failed resolutions, and ongoing ones. This creates a living public record of issues and proposed governance responses.

This is the synthesis. 1 = 2 + 3 = 4.

Why This Matters

• It forces clarity and traceability. No more vague complaints floating in chaos.
• It turns public input into a collaborative upgrade process.
• It shows which tickets are being handled, stalled, ignored — in plain sight.
• It makes every AI edit accountable, not mysterious.
• It doesn’t replace the ombudsman — it arms them.

Business Model? Sure — But Keep It Public

Yes, this is a product. But no, it shouldn’t be commercialized. This is civic infrastructure. It belongs to the commons.

It could be sold to municipalities, NGOs, or transparency coalitions — but that defeats the purpose.

Build it, release it, and let it run at zero cost. The public has already paid for enough systems that don’t work. This one should.

The value lies not in monetization — but in legitimacy.

Expanded Use: From Complaint Board to Administrative Operating System

What starts as a feedback tool can evolve into a complete civic engine. The system can scale:

1. Reported Issue
2. Processed Issue (by a public servant or automated filter)
   • AI-generated remark on process adequacy (4-stages again)
3. Re-open option if resolution was insufficient (4-stages again)
4. Cross-department visibility and workflow mapping
   • The ticket can go through different departments and the work of each department remains visible.

Each issue flows like a case file, but it’s public-facing and structurally transparent. Departments can adopt the system internally. Citizens and officials see the same state of the case. Updates are traceable.

With enough refinement, this system could even approach pre-judicial arbitration or replace lower-level administrative courts — especially for predictable, repeatable types of disputes (benefits, housing, permit denials, etc.).

At some point a judge and lawyer can then bend over the case after it went through these 3 steps.

Design Philosophy

• Public by default.
• AI-enhanced, not AI-obscured.
• Built around iteration, not resolution-hiding.
• Input is traceable. Reasoning is legible. Logic is public.
• Not built to silence citizens with forms — but to cohere chaos into clarity.

Potential Impact:

If deployed at scale, this would:

• Reduce performative complaint culture (“I ranted online!”) in favor of traceable input.
• Provide oversight journalists and watchdogs with live case data.
• Offer civil servants a way to separate noise from signal.
• Create longitudinal accountability: we’d know what failed, what improved, and why.
• We can track government efficiency through details such as backlog and amount of re-opened cases

Final Thought

Let’s stop treating public concern like noise.

Let’s give it a ticket.

Let’s give the ombudsman jaws.

Give people a way to speak clearly. Let the problems stay visible. Let the fixes be criticized. Let the system evolve in full view.

Democracy doesn’t die in darkness — it suffocates in forms. We’ve normalized arbitrary bureaucracy and opaque complaint systems. But the technology to upgrade them exists. All we’re missing is the will — and the will can be crowd-sourced.

Written by Artorius Magnus

https://tinyurl.com/laconic-utopia World-Peace suggestions @250 articles highschool dropout-autodidact (unofficially 5+ PhD's).

De petitionaris van de petitie Extraparlementair kabinet nu vraagt u de petitie te ondertekenen:

"Deze petitie was opgezet bij de vorige formatie, maar is nog steeds geldig..."

https://extraparlementairnu.petities.nl

Wilt u deze of een andere petitie ook aandacht geven hier? .

Nu Pieter Omtzigt de vorming van een rechtse coalitie onder Geert Wilders heeft afgewezen, groeit de kans op een extraparlementair kabinet, schrijft Thijs Broer. ‘Eigenlijk is er ook geen alternatief.

Het antwoord van de minister: "Ik betreur dat er bij de ondertekenaars van de petitie een gevoel bestaat dat ouderen verwaarloosd worden en niet waardevol zijn, zeker indien hieraan de suggestie wordt gekoppeld dat er sprake is van een beleidskeuze in die richting."

Bron

REACTIE

Beste ondertekenaar van petitie “Stop verwaarlozing ouderen”,

U hielp ons in de strijd om verwaarlozing en onnodig overlijden van onze kwetsbare ouderen onder de aandacht te krijgen bij de minister en de commissieleden van VWS / WLZ.

Dank voor uw handtekening, en toegevoegde, duidelijke mening aan de petitie! Dit maakte onze petitie heel krachtig.

En laten tekenen .

De gemeenteraad Amstelveen heeft unaniem ingestemd met de diverse beslispunten in het raadsbesluit. In dit raadsbesluit stelt de gemeente voor om 1 jaar subsidie toe te kennen.

Bijeenkomst Nieuwe Visie Natuurgebied Zuilen 6 december 19:00- 21:00 Vechtse Banen

Dit stelt de gemeente in de nieuwe visie: "Natuurgebied Zuilen bestaat nu vooral uit weilanden. We willen hier meer verschillende soorten bomen, bloemen, planten, insecten en dieren de ruimte geven.

Bedankt voor alle handtekeningen! Met bijna 2.000 handtekeningen overtreft dit al onze verwachtingen.

Wat heerlijk om op deze manier te vernemen dat jullie ook graag verse oliebollen kopen op Oudejaarsdag, ook als die op zondag valt.

Inmiddels is er veel gebeurd. De fractie van Durf heeft de gemeenteraad vragen gesteld, waar helaas niet het antwoord op volgde dat we hoopten.

Beste ondertekenaars van de petitie,

Dank voor uw steun voor de petitie. Graag laten we weten dat hierover in de gemeenteraad is gesproken.