censorship vs. responsibility (was Re: Truncation Resistance #2

[Steve Eppley]

Hugh T wrote:
>On re-reading Steve's first posting I am inclined to withdraw the
>term "censorship" (which I had thought to soften with "consensus"),
>because Steve could be read not as proposing a rule restraining
>speech, but as simply seeking an expression of consensus as to what
>forms of speech would be most useful.  But I find that Steve rejects
>the term on other grounds.  I do think rules that restrain speech,
>even with "escape clauses" that the rulemakers deem reasonable,
>amount to censorship. Whether it is good or bad is another question
>(for example, postings not germane to the list should be censored).

I don't want to quibble over whether the word "censorship" is
appropriate or too harsh.  I think this discussion has been useful,
however, in helping to clarify the problem with the status quo and
possible remedies.

-snip-
>I do not look forward to responses telling a poster that he or she
>is out of order for having the temerity to propose something with 
>an explanation that is not "solid" or with a criterion that is not
>worthy of "respect," rather than simply addressing the posting on
>its merits 

I would not look forward to that either, but I think Hugh is letting
his fear of that possibility paralyze him (and us).  In practice, if
someone responds to a post by inappropriately asserting that an
explanation isn't solid or that a criterion doesn't deserve respect,
other members of the group should be expected to criticize that 
kind of attack.  If the group welcomes challenges to posts due to 
alleged omission of analysis, the group's opinions on what kinds of 
challenges are inappropriate will eventually be clarified.  

More important, by welcoming these challenges, fuzziness about which
criteria a proposed method satisfies will be better clarified, and
the pros and cons of the proposed criterion will be better explored.
If Hugh is encouraging people to continue proposing methods without
evaluating them on criteria which members have expressed an interest
in supporting--or any criteria at all for that matter--he'd be
arguing for a continuation of what has already proved to be a
troublesome form of discourse.

>In lieu of any statement about what "should not be posted", I would
>suggest an item in the FAQ that explains in neutral terms what
>format and what type of information is helpful to readers when one
>posts a new system or variant, and that goes on to indicate that
>because that S//C[EM] was chosen by vote of the members of this
>list, posters should be prepared to compare the results of their
>systems to those of S//C[EM] in certain examples and to justify 
>any differences.  

Good.  That would be a significant improvement over the status quo. 

I don't see much difference between this proposal and mine; it
depends on what Hugh means by "should be prepared to compare...
and to justify..."  Is Hugh suggesting that people go ahead posting
proposals without inclusion of the comparisons and justifications,
and that then one of the "daily regulars" clutter the list by posting
the canned reply "now please provide the comparisons & justifications
the group expects you to be prepared to make"?

Do we have a consensus in support of modifying EM's welcome message
so it includes Hugh's proposed standard, that proposers of methods 
should be prepared to compare and to justify?  It doesn't go as far 
as specifying a remedy for perceived violations or provide a clear 
formula for recognizing violations, but it might be helpful anyway.
It makes it more clear that there is some burden on proposers to 
address the merits (and lack of merits) of their proposals, instead 
of leaving the burden to the respondents.

If it turns out that this doesn't go far enough, we can resume a
discussion of other options later.

I don't know when Hugh subscribed to EM.  Early on we spent a couple
months floundering with a "methods first" discussion paradigm until
we replaced it with a more productive "democratic standards first"
paradigm.

>I believe it should be made clear that failing Steve's first test
>poses a much more fundamental issue -- i.e., what justifies
>rejecting the Condorcet criterion 

I second this.  I'm still waiting for a certain subscriber to post
an explanation "worthy of respect" for his conflicting criterion that
candidates should be eliminated one at a time.  To me, it looks
pretty clear that it's just an irrational "aesthetic" judgment
unrelated to democratic fundamentals, and I don't believe he's
posted any reasonable arguments yet in support of it.  I invite Hugh 
and others to express their comments about this (using an appropriate
Subject line), using whatever tactful "non-piling-on" language they
wish.

>-- and that example 2, if given at all, relates to a claimed
>advantage of a particular Condorcet version.

The discussion of why Truncation Resistance is a criterion worthy of 
respect will continue in a separate message thread, so this thread 
can remain about general "EM netiquette" principles.  My point is 
that, in general, proposers of methods ought to discuss how their 
methods fare on the criteria which others have declared to be 
important, emphasizing the criteria which have the broadest 
acceptance.  (TR and TR-2 may not have broad acceptance yet.)

Perhaps its time to nominate standards and criteria for inclusion 
in the FAQ and the EM welcome message, and conduct a couple rounds 
of polling to see how much consensus there is on them.  (We should 
also include the final round of poll responses, plus brief pros & cons
for and against the "less worthy" criteria, in the FAQ.)

>As to sharing the burden, I have been critical of methods like IRO,
>and Condorcet w/ Approval, where I thought that the responses of the
>regulars left anything unsaid.  In general I find that others are
>so quick and prolific in their criticism that one who cannot post
>daily would only be redundant, or appear to be piling on, in
>criticizing systems other than Smith//Condorcet[EM].    

I commend Hugh for his reluctance to "pile on" but I think he's been
overlooking an important "non-redundant" value of people chiming in
with added support for or opposition to statements posted in the
list.  When there's a long-running argument between people who
regularly disagree on something, analysis by neutral-appearing 
third parties can help break the discourse's logjam.  

In an environment of overwhelming silence, antagonists are
apt to conclude that some important viewpoint is just a partisan
minority opinion.  Messages from those who don't post frequently
are considered highly significant just because they don't post 
frequently; they appear to be more neutral bystanders.

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)