[EM] Long-used strategy definitions

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

EM list--

Markus objected to the use of the sincere CW (SCW) in a definition
of offensive or defensive strategy. I also expected someone to
object to my offensive strategy definition by saying that
our best methods will sometimes elect a majority-beaten candidate
when there's a not-majority-beaten one, and so that, using some
unspecified voting system, strategizing to make Tideman's winner
win instead of PC's winner would be called "offensive strategy"
by that definition.

I answered Markus's objection in a separate reply just before
starting this message. As for the other objection, the one that
I wrote above, maybe it means that I should have stuck with my
older offensive strategy definition.

Here's how I've defined defensive & offensive strategy for years:

Strategy:

Departure from sincerely voting every preference or rating that
the voting system allows to be expressed, for the purpose of
improving one's outcome.

Defensive strategy:

Strategy used by a member of a certain majority, for the purpose
of electing someone whom everyone in that majority want to elect,
or preventing the election of someone whom everyone in that majority
want to prevent from being elected.

Offensive strategy:

Strategy intended to take victory from a sincere CW and give it
to someone whom the strategist likes better than the sincere CW.

[end of those 2 definitions]

Yesterday I added something about the SCW to the defensive strategy
definition, and something about majority to the offensive strategy
definition, for the sake of making the definitions more similar
and opposite.

But if some people don't like the SCW being in the defensive
strategy definition, those people are unlikely to object to
the majority-based definition that I stated above, and which is
the definition that I've been using all these years.

As for the offensive strategy definition, I don't talk about
offensive strategy to the public anyway--defensive strategy, and
the need for it, is, to me, the important thing, and is what
my & Steve's criteria are about. I only talk about offensive
strategy on this list, where we all agree with the desirability
of the SCW winning. (And the importance of the SCW goes beyond
any partisanship, criterion or method, due to what Riker pointed
out, as described in my other e-mail that I just sent).

I admit that the majority part of yesterday's offensive strategy
could offend some, because it implies that Tideman's winner is
worse than PC's winner, when PC chooses outside the Smith set.
So, for now, at least, I retract that definition that I wrote
yesterday.

I'm going back to the definitions that I've been using for
years, of offensive & defensive strategy, the defintions stated
above in this message. But, just between you & me, we probably
agree that protecting the win of the SCW, that natural winner,
really should qualify as defensive strategy too.

Which defensive strategy definition do you prefer, the one
that I wrote above, or the one that adds that protecting the win
of an SCW is defensive strategy too?

Which offensive strategy definition do you like better, the one
that I wrote today, above in this message, or the one that I
wrote yesterday, which also speaks of trying to change victory from
a not-majority-beaten candidate to a majority-beaten one?

For now, the definitions stated near the beginning of this message
are the definitions that I use, but I'd change one or more of them
to the definitions I stated yesterday if people prefer those.

Is the SCW's win fundamentally natural enough to include the SCW
in the defensive strategy definition? Or does that sound too
partisan?

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.