[EM] Re: Paul reply

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>The same language is used in both cases
>
>I reply:
>
>Well the wording is different.

Paul replied:

If you say so.

I reply:

On EM, when we speak of named strategies, such as Strategy A, or Best 
Frontrunner, or Threat/Promise, etc., then we´re discussing ways that a 
person could vote in Approval. Suggestions for how someone could vote in 
Approval. Most of those strategies, including all the ones that I suggest, 
are intended to maximize the voter´s expectation in the election. They 
differ in what kind of estimates they require.

You were saying that that could be confused with strategy vulnerabilities, 
but when that´s being discussed, people usually explicity say "This method 
is vulnerable to tlruncation", etc. As I was saying, though, I don`t 
consider vulnerability to strategy to be the important strategy problem of 
voting systems. I´m more concerned about the voter´s need to use defensive 
strategy--the range of situations in which that can be necessary, and the 
degree of drasticness of the strategy needed.
But people, including me, are pretty explicit when discussing that too.

If postings seem unclear about whether they´re about strategy suggestions or 
methods´strategy vulnerabilities, could you specifically point to the 
wordings that are ambiguous about that? If they are, and if you point to the 
ambiguities, then I´m sure that whoever is being ambiguous would be glad to 
clarify their meanings better, when you point out what is ambiguous.

>
>You continued:
>
>, so it can be confusing when is
>concerned about the latter but finds the former irrelevant.
>
>I reply:
>
>Surely you´re not saying that you believe that how to vote is irrelevant.

You replied:

No, what I am saying is that you don't use English very clearly.

I reply:

You´re generalizing, and that doesn´t tell us anything. You need to point to 
a specific instance in which something is said unclearly. There´s no way I 
can tell you what I meant, or clarify a term that I´ve been using unless you 
say exactly what it was that was unclear.

I´d be glad to tell you what I meant by something, and say it more clearly 
next time, but first you´d have to do your part by specifying exactly what 
wasn´t said clearly enough.

You continued:

And
evidently don't read it very well, since you reply to a different topic than
the one I mentioned.

I reply:

You didn´t mention ambiguity about the distinction between strategy 
suggestions and methods´strategy vulnerabilities?

You continued:

I said, when you're talking about how voters should behave, say so. And when
you're talking about how an election method works, make it a little more
clear.

I reply:

So far so good, but it would be easier to clarify it if you´d say exactly 
which wording was unclear, and in what way it was unclear. Then I could tell 
you what was meant by it, and word it differently next time.

You´re unnecessarily getting all in a huff. Just say which wordings were 
unclear. The goal of postings is to make a point or, make information 
available, or advocate something; and of course, for that purpose, it´s 
necessary to say things clearly. So I´d be interested in any unclarity in 
something that I´ve been saying. You´re saying that there´s been ambiguity 
regarding strategy suggestions vs methods´strategy vulnerabilities, and  I 
would be glad to say it more clearly, if you´d tell exactly what wording was 
unclear. Not just as a courtesy, but also because I´m not making my point 
very well, or getting the information out very well if the wording is 
unclear.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/