# [EM] Cloneproof SSD

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 22 18:59:50 PST 2001

```

In the messages quoted below, Craig & Blake discuss orders for dropping
equal defeats. I re-emphasize that these aren't how Cloneproof SSD
does that. Cloneproof SSD, when encountering 2 or more defeats that
are equally the weakest in the current Schwartz set, simultaneously
drops all of those equally weakest defeats.

> >There would be a few ways. You could always say that the pairwise
>contest
> >expressed first (ie, the one in which the lowest numbered candidate of
>the
> >pair is the highest).  In the above case it would be W:X.  Although,
>it
> >would probably make more sense to do the opposite (the pairwise contest
>in
> >which the lowest numbered candidate of the pair is the lowest).

Markus wrote:

>
>Tideman suggests you should rank the pairwise contests by the pairwise
>winners .  So, if you have W>X and Y>Z, and a tiebreaker of W>Y>X>Z, the
>pairwise contests (or "pairs" as Tideman calls them) are ordered W>X and
>then Y>Z, since W>Y in the tiebreaker.  If you have pairwise ties, then
>they are processed as victories for the candidate higher in the
>tie-breaker, in order of place in the tiebreaker.  Victories of the same
>candidate can be processed in arbitrary order, since this does not
>affect the result.

That's Tideman's proposal for Tideman's method.
Since I no longer propose Tideman's method, I have no quarrel about
its rules.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________