Nieuws

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).

Hollanda'da ölen o?lunun ölüm sebebini mezar ta??na yazd?rd? http://www.cihan.com.tr/video/Hollanda-da-olen-oglunun-olum-sebebini-mezar-tasina-yazdirdi-CHNzM2MjE1LzAvMi8w  .

?hsan Gürz’ün mezar ta??nda Hollanda hükümeti k?nand?  .

  O?lunun kalbini ve beynini istiyor! http://www.beyazgazete.com/video/anahaber/kanal-7-28/2012/06/24/oglunun-kalbini-ve-beynini-istiyor-293969.html Ailesi, Hollanda’da polis karakolunda gördü?ü ?iddet sonucu öldürüldü?ü iddias?nda bulundu?u o?ullar? ?hsan Gürz için hukuk mücadelelerini sürdüreceklerini söyledi.Baba Cengiz Gürz, Hollanda savc?l??? soru?turmay? tamamlamad??? için davan?n henüz aç?lmad???n? ve Trabzon Adli T?p Kurumu'ndan al?nan rapora göre, o?lunun iç organlar?n?n olmad???n?n tespit edildi?ini ve o?lunun çal?nan kalbini geri istedi?ini söyledi.Geçen y?l Temmuz ay?nda, 22 ya??ndaki ?hsan Gürz, Hollanda'n?n Beverwijk ?ehrindeki polis karakolunda hayat?n? kaybetmi?ti. Erzincan Mollaköy beldesinde 7 Temmuz 2011 günü topra?a verilen ?hsan Gürz’ün mezar?, definden 3 gün sonra yeniden otopsi yap?lmak üzere aç?lm??t?.

Hollanda'da Gözalt?ndayken Ölen Türk Genci Hollanda'n?n Beverwijk ?ehrinde geçen sene gözalt?na al?nd??? karakolda görevli polisler taraf?ndan dövülerek öldürüldü?ü ileri sürülen 22 ya??ndaki ?hsan Gürz'ün ailesi, o?ullar?n?n kay?p oldu?unu iddia ettikleri organlar?n?n bulunmas?n? istiyor. Hollanda'n?n Beverwijk ?ehrinde geçen sene gözalt?na al?nd??? karakolda görevli polisler taraf?ndan dövülerek öldürüldü?ü ileri sürülen 22 ya??ndaki ?hsan Gürz'ün ailesi, o?ullar?n?n kay?p oldu?unu iddia ettikleri organlar?n?n bulunmas?n? istiyor. Hollanda'n?n Beverwijk kentinde, geçen y?l evlerinin yak?nlar?ndaki bir kafeteryaya giderken polislerce gözalt?na al?nan ve ?jmuiden Velsen Kennemland Karakolu'nda görevli polisler taraf?ndan dövülerek öldürüldü?ü ileri sürülen ?hsan Gürz'ün ailesi, çocuklar?n?n mezar?n? yapt?rmak üzere geldikleri Erzincan'da bas?n mensuplar?n?n sorular?n? yan?tlad?.

  Hicbir sey sandiginiz gibi degil Tam bir yil once 22 yasinda bir genc Hollanda polisi tarafindan doverek olduruluyor.  Ne?! Hollanda mi? Hollanda polisi mi? Vay canina, Hollanda demek? Hani su ozgurlugun ulkesi, su bir miktar uyusturucu tasimanin serbest oldugu, su kultur duzeyinin yuksek oldugu, su her turlu manyakligin yasal oldugu, su insanlarinin cogunun bize gore entelektuel oldugu, ayni cinsiyetten insanlarin evlenebildigi, escinsel insanlarin herkes gibi yasadigi, insanlarin kari koca coffeeshop'larda ot cekip teraslarda biralarini ictikleri ve en onemlisi 'sosyal devlet' dedigimiz, sosyal haklarin tam oldugu, herkesin insan haklarini ovdugu, hatta ölmek isteyenlerin hakkini bile korudugu, cogu hapishanelere artik gerek duyulmadigi icin kapatildigi ulke mi?.. Yok yeaa. Var yeaa. 22 yasindaki genc Hollanda polisi tarafindan doverek olduruluyor ve sonra n'oluyor? Aaaa! Oooo! Uuu! Aman tanriiim, bu olamaz, bizim ulkemizde boyle bir sey olamaz! Boylelerini asmali! Boylelerini kesmeli! Boyle bir sey bizim ulkemizde, Hollanda'da nasil olur! Burasi Orta Dogu degil ki, burasi Hollanda, sosyal bir devlette boyle bir rezalet, aaaaa! Ölen gencin adi Ihsan Gürz..

  Bloemetje voor de politie Peter Breedveld- Precies een jaar geleden werd de 22-jarige Ihsan Gürz dood gevonden in een politiecel. Door buitensporig geweld, te oordelen naar de toegetakelde toestand van zijn lijk, maar Gürz’ doodsoorzaak wordt steeds onmogelijker vast te stellen, aangezien het openbaar ministerie hardnekkig weigert openheid van zaken te geven.  .

  Ishan Gürz: De schreeuw om gerechtigheid BEVERWIJK - Het is waar iedere ouder de rillingen van over de rug lopen; de gedachte aan het krijgen van het bericht dat je kind is omgekomen. Deze ergste nachtmerrie is wat Cengiz Gürz en zijn echtgenote overkwam op de ochtend van 3 juli 2011, toen zij het bericht thuis kregen dat hun zoon Ishan (22) dood was gevonden in een IJmuidense politiecel.  .

  Ouders van overleden Beverwijkse arrestant willen vervolging agenten BEVERWIJK - De ouders van de vorig jaar overleden arrestant Ishan Gürz uit Beverwijk gaan de conclusie van het Openbaar Ministerie dat de politie geen blaam treft bij de rechtbank aanvechten.  .