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).

Donderdag 9 december 2010 gaf 113online het onderstaande persbericht uit. Het onderstreept opnieuw hoe belangrijk het is dat deze petitie door zoveel mogelijk mensen wordt ondertekend nu zowel overheid als zorgverzekeraars weigeren met een oplossing te komen voor financiering van anonieme online hulpverlening. Persbericht: Zorgverzekeraars weigeren financiering 113Online (zelfmoordpreventie)De nationale zelfmoordpreventielijn 113Online dreigt per 1 april 2011 te verdwijnen. Minister Schippers (VWS) en de zorgverzekeraars kunnen het niet eens kunnen worden over de financiering van 113Online.

Alles wat nodig is om je opleiding te volgen en af te maken moet de school zelf betalen. Daar betaal je immers studiegeld voor.

PRESS RELEASE (in Dutch)Monday 6 December the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European member states have reached an agreement on the implementation of the European Citizens Initiative, a promise in the Treaty of Lisbon. Citizens will be able to ask the European Commission (a sort of government of Europe) for regulations and directives if such a demand is supported by one million signatures.

Persbericht | press release in English Op maandag 6 december is een akkoord bereikt tussen de Europese Commissie, het Europese Parlement en de Europese landen over de exacte uitwerking van het 'Europese Burgerinitiatief', zoals voorgenomen in het Verdrag van Lissabon. Burgers kunnen de Europese Commissie (zeg maar 'de regering van Europa') vragen om nieuwe regelgeving als die vraag met een miljoen handtekeningen wordt ondersteund. De commissie is dan verplicht daar na een uitgebreid onderzoek antwoord op te geven via een openbare hoorzitting. De eisen die worden gesteld aan een dergelijk burgerinitiatief zijn: - er moet een commissie van zeven burgers uit verschillende lidstaten verantwoordelijk zijn voor het geregistreerd kan worden; - bij de registratie van een burgerinitiatief wordt gecontroleerd of Europa er wel wat mee kan en een Europese reikwijdte heeft;  - de ondertekeningen moeten verspreid uit een kwart van de Europese lidstaten komen; - wat geldt als geldige ondertekening wordt vastgesteld door de lidstaat van de ondertekenaar. Petities.nl zal het Europees Burgerinitiatief faciliteren.

Zwembad De Biezem in Laren blijft voorlopig toch open tot 1 januari 2013. Daarna gaat het bad definitief dicht vanwege de slechte technische staat er van..

Een paar uur geleden heb ik de petitie rond gestuurd via onze nieuwe schoomaill-database. We staan nu op 15 stemmen, en dit is de eerste volledige dag dat hij open staat. Opzich een prima begin.

Op 24 november 2010 vergaderde de commissie Bouwen, Wonen en Klimaat over de herziene ontwerp-structuurvisie. Het was een openbare vergadering met tijd voor inspraak waar vele Amsterdammers gebruik van maakten.

De cv-koorts bij de PVV lijkt chronisch te worden, zoals  ProRail en de ‘vrije postmarkt’ ook onbehandelbare trekken krijgen. Maar de kiloknaller in het nieuws van de week was het gebrek aan verontwaardiging over de ontspoorde vleesindustrie.