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).

Zakenreizigers naar Japan die gevaccineerd zijn met Pfizer of Moderna hoeven nog maar 3 dagen in quarantaine. Reizigers met Janssen hebben pech.

De twijfel die over de effectiviteit van het Janssen-vaccin is ontstaan, is volgens de Volkskrant het gevolg van studie die rammelt. Volgens die studie die vorige week in het medische tijdschrift Science verscheen, biedt het Janssen-vaccin een half jaar na toediening nauwelijks bescherming meer tegen het virus.

Andere, veel grotere studies kwamen voor dit vaccin tot veel gunstiger conclusies.

Vaccin fabrikant Janssen is met de 499 miljoen euro in 2020 de op twee na grootste investeerder in onderzoek en ontwikkeling in Nederland. Demissionair minister van Volksgezondheid Hugo de Jonge bezocht vandaag de fabriek van Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V.

In Frankrijk en de Verenigde Staten krijgen mensen die zich hebben laten vaccineren met Janssen met voorrang een booster. Dat is dan geen derde prik, maar een tweede, omdat het Janssen-vaccin uit één dosis bestaat.

Sinds het starten van deze petitie worden we ook aangesproken en gebeld door bewoners uit de 2de Mensinglaan, Spoorlaan, mendelstraat en Linnaeuslaan waar ook het verkeer behoorlijk is toegenomen en vooral in de Linneauslaan is ook veel fietsverkeer van schoolgaande kinderen. Helaas kunnen wij deze straten niet benoemen in de petitie omdat dar geen ruimte is natuurlijk mag dit wel bij de opmerking/functie genoemd worden zodat dit ook bekend wordt bij het aanbieden van de petitie dat ook deze straten veel last hebben van het omgeleide verkeer door het afsluiten van de N196..

Beste buurtbewoner,

Alweer de vierde update over de voortgang van de petitie. In onze vorige update op 19 september hebben we je opgeroepen meldingen te doen op de Slim Melden app van de gemeente. Het krijgen van beweging bij de gemeente voor veilige wegen kost veel tijd en energie en daarom blijft jouw steun hard nodig.

Op 2 november 2021 zijn wij naar Den Haag gegaan om de petitie aan te bieden. De onderwijswoordvoerders van alle grote partijen hadden tijd voor ons vrij gemaakt om naar onze speech te luisteren en om de handtekeningen in ontvangst te nemen.

Op 2 november hebben we de petitie overhandigd aan ABP-bestuurder Anne Gram. Dit gebeurde een week nadat ABP bekend had gemaakt de investeringen uit fossiele brandstoffen te zullen terugtrekken.