[EM] Russ asks about my criteria

[Russ Paielli]

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:

> Russ continues:
> 
> Let me also mention that I had suggested to Mike way back that we
> provide proofs for his criteria such as SFC, GSFC, and others.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> What does it mean to "prove" a criterion? :-)
> 
> One defines a criterion. Then one might prove one or methods' compliance 
> or noncompliance with it.

OK, you got me on that one, Mike. I mis-spoke (mis-wrote?). But I think 
what I meant was obvious. I had created a criteria compliance table for 
five major election methods and 8 or 9 criteria.

> Is Russ trying to say that  never proved methods' compliance or 
> noncompliance with the criteria?

You know that's what I meant, or you're an idiot. Mike, communicating 
with you is almost like programming a computer. Leave out a semicolon 
(in some languages at least), and it squawks back at you about a syntax 
error. Go ahead and call me on my error, but don't be an ass and pretend 
that my intended meaning was unclear.

> Actually I sent those demonstrations to Russ more than once. First when 
> he firsts asked to have the criteria at his website. And again later 
> when the demonstrations were requested by someone else.

Hmmm... I don't recall that. Well, maybe you did send a few, but 
certainly nothing like the entire set.

> Russ continued:
> 
> That leads me to wonder if Mike can really prove any or all of his
> criteria.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Maybe Russ will tell us what he means by "prove...criteria".

That again?

> I reply:
> 
> I did, more than once.
> 
> I emphasize that the compliance and noncompliance demonstrations were 
> posted to EM a number of times too. But they'll be re-posted upon request.

What would be much more useful would be if you put it on a website in a 
nice, organized structure rather than just spitting it out on in email. 
That's how we communicate such information here in the third millenium, 
Mike. Oh, wait ... I forgot. You're incapable of doing that yourself -- 
and you've pissed off anyone who might be willing to do it for you.

> But it goes without saying, that now that I've withdrawn permission for 
> you to have my articles or anything originating from me at your website, 
> you instantly become an opponent of whatever is from me, and that's ok too.

That's baloney. I still oppose IRV and favor Approval, though I now 
realize that you didn't (and perhaps still don't) understand the 
real-world limitations of Approval.

> Aren't you going to now oppose wv Condorcet too? Because, I must warn 
> you, Russ, I was its initial proponent. Well, Norm posted quotes 

I'll give that more thought later.

> I reply:
> 
> In what sense does Russ believe that criteria live? Rhetorical question. 

How the hell can that be a rhetorical question, Mike. I believe criteria 
"live" if they are considered important by a significant number of 
people, preferably people who are respected for their knowledge of 
voting systems.

> Finally, a little "friendly" advice to Mike. He probably won't take it
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> but the loss will only be his.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> What loss? I don't get royalties when my criteria are used. Take them or 
> leave them. I offer them, but I don't go out of my way to promote them.

Mike, the word "loss" doesn't apply only to financial loss. It can also 
apply to reputation or recognition, for example. I assume you would like 
to be recognized for your contributions like anyone else. That's where 
your loss will be.

> Russ continues:
> 
> I suggest that he formally document his
> criteria in one or more technical papers and submit them to
> peer-reviewed journals or conferences.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Why??  I've read enough of what is written by voting system academics to 
> know that they aren't interested in getting rid of the lesser-of-2-evils 
> problem. Getting rid of that problem is the purpose of my criteria. It 
> could be worded more generally, as the goal of minimizing need for 
> defensivse strategy, as I've defined it on EM. Minimizing the range of 
> situations in which that strategy is needed (SFC & GSFC describe 
> conditions under which certain voters won't need defensive strategy, 
> with a complyilng method), or the drasticness of taht strategy when it 
> is needed.

So you're not even willing to try? You've simply *assumed* that your 
work will be rejected and you are already complaining about the reasons 
why. Perhaps your assumption is correct, Mike. Perhaps your work will be 
unfairly rejected -- or perhaps it will be *fairly* rejected, but that's 
no justification for not even *trying*.

I do guarantee one thing, however. If you do decide to try to formally 
document your ideas in journal papers, you will find out that it is not 
nearly as easy as you think it will be.And that is true regardless of 
whether your ideas have significant merit or not, but particularly if 
they don't.

> The academics and I simply have different purposes, different goals. 
> Without making any judgement about which goals are better, that means 
> that there would be no point in my communicating with the academics.

You don't know that until you try.

> Though it would sound good to say that I don't criticize the academics 
> for their different goals, I can't make that claim. Most voting system 
> academics are completely out of touch with the concerns and interest of 
> voters. But they're in touch with eachother's concerns.

That may well be. But it is no excuse for giving up before you even 
start -- especially given the massive amount of time you have already 
devoted to the subject. How long have you been posting those multi-page 
diatribes, Mike? Since well into the previous millenium?

> Russ said:
> 
> You can't build a "career" on an email list.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> I'm not trying to build a career.

But you are obviously trying to build a reputation. Let's call it an 
"unpaid" career. Semantics.

Now that I think about, I guess I can start to understand why you are so 
friggin' hostile. I would probably be hostile too if I didn't get paid 
for the work I do. Then again, I'd still like to know what you *do* get 
paid for, Mike. But apparently you are too embarrassed to tell us.