[EM] SARC definition improvement

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said--

>
>you wrote (14 Sep 2000):
> > I don't know how to say it more clearly: You haven't shown
> > that the criterion's wording is ambiguous. All we have is
> > that you & Bruce claim to misunderstand it. Unless you can
> > show an ambiguity, then your misunderstanding is your own
> > fault, not that of the criterion. That's what I meant. That
> > demonstates a certain desperation in your effort to find
> > criticism. Markus, as I said we appreciate & welcome your
> > criticisms of the defensive strategy criteria, but if you
> > don't tell us better criticisms than you have been, then
> > you're just wasting our time.
>
>There is only one way to check whether your wordings of the
>lesser-of-two-evils criteria are clear or ambiguous: You
>should name a person --except for Steve Eppley and yourself--
>who you believe that he has understood your wordings of the
>lesser-of-two-evils criteria and who is willing to answer
>questions. I will ask him a few simple questions about your
>wordings. If he is able to answer these questions properly
>without additional help, then I will withdraw my claim that
>your wordings are ambiguous.

I don't really care whether or not you withdraw your claim about
WDSC & SDSC being ambiguious. If you can't justify your claims in
a way that can convince others, that's good enough.

You say that there's only one way to check whether my wordings
of criteria are ambiguous--by asking others questions about them.

No, there's another way: If you can't make an ambiguity claim that
stands up to scrutiny, that shows that your claim isn't to be
taken seriously. Of course then it's a matter of how convincing your
justifications of your arguments are. For instance, I asked you
if you agree or disagree with my claim about what it means to say
that a method complies with a criterion that refers to some candidates
by letter designations and speaks of a way of voting that's available
to certain voters. You haven't answered whether or not you agree with
my claim about what that means. I asked you, if you don't believe
it means what I say it means, then what do you think it means to say
that a method complies with such a criterion? You haven't answered that
either.

You claim that the criteria are ambiguious, but you don't know what
you think it means to say that a method complies with such a criterion.

That means that you've quite failed to support your claim about the
ambiguity.

Anyway, if we ask someone what the criteria mean, without dumping your
confusion on them first, they'll surely just say:

"Well, if there's a majority who prefer candidate A to candidate B,
then they can make B lose without voting a less-liked candidate over
a more-liked one [or equal to or over a more-liked one, in the case
of SDSC. A definition of equal-voting would accompany the criterion].
What else do you want me to tell you about it?"

But if you share with that person all of your confusions, the
resolution of which require lengthy explanation, and definitions of
what it means to comply with a criterion, then that's not going to
be something that that person will understand.

You're doing just what I said I hoped you wouldn't: You've asked some
silly questions that require wordy & involved answers. And then
now you're saying that the criteria are too complicated, because if
you were to dump your confusion on a typical person, he wouldn't
understand the discussion that it would take to explain your
errors to you.

But you said "ambiguous". Even if you do as I mentioned in the previous
paragraph, and the person didn't understand the resulting discussion,
that doesn't mean the criteria are ambiguous. It means only that
it's always possible to bring up some bizarre misunderstanding of yours,
and thereby complicate the discussion. Bring up confusions about
involved or complicated issues, at least enough to require some
paragraphs of discussion about those issues, and of course you
can make the discussion complicated enough that most people, not into
voting systems, or at least not into that sort of discussion, wouldn't
be able to answer your irrelevant & confused questions.

As I said, the fact that you don't know what you mean by saying
that a method meets a criterion like WDSC or SDSC disqualifies you
from talking about ambiguity that you allege that they have.
And you haven't answered my question about what you think it means to
say that a method meets such a criterion.

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.