[EM] electionmethods website is cancelled

[Craig Carey]

Blaming Russ is extraordinary since you (MIKE) have 10 layers of an
ability to make the definition unusable or worse.

Quite possibly your plan is to produce a much worse website.

One idea can lead to a massive improve: reject all wordings that a
quantifier eliminating software solver can't understand.

It sounds like you don't plan to made the more mathematical. Currently
they can't be used since unreal or trojanized or educating, or
emphasizing. We had 4 years of you claiming to have used unusable rules,
except that you have lost interest in the list at times.

New rules that discourage people from making untrue claims: e.g. that
voters have a favourite (and the OSSIPOFF favourite is not a single
ballot paper's first preference).

----

A typical format of a rule:

  For all collections of weighted papers, V,
  For all unweighted kinds of papers p,
  For all candidate, c
  If c wins [this] then c wins [that].

Just look at those 4 lines: the "For All" lines create ballot papers.

At the electionmethods.org website. it seems to be the webmaster who
creates ballot papers. We see sincerity traits show up and so forth.

I have had minor private e-mail with some subscribers here, and they all
failed to convert one of your rules into a usable mathematical form.

It seems that no one can help you with the unusual (Approval promoting)
unusable rules that first appeared in about April 2000.

((Is there a plan to delete mistakes from the website ?).


At 2005-01-12 01:54 +0000 Wednesday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>
>  I've asked Russ to either take down his website, or at least remove from 
>it my articles, and anything there that has its origin in any suggestions or 
>comments that I'd sent to Russ.
>
>Over the years, Russ's website has been an ongoing embarrassment on EM, 
>because Russ has often
>  reworded my definitions in a way that is ambiguous or means something 
>different from the wordings that I'd sent to him.
>
>I've been getting more and more tired of hearing on EM about "my" ambiguous 
>defrinitions on the electionmethods website.
>
>Most of what was at electionmethods can be found at the following website:
>
>   http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html
>
>  The Approval strategy articles there need some updating, but, with 
>possibly a few changes, the rest is up to date. Of course I'll update 
>whatever needs it.
>
>  So I recommend http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html as the 
>replacement for the electionmethods website.
>
>   But Russ's befuddled rewording of my definitions wasn't the final reason 
>to ask him to cancel the website. It took a little more than that.
>
...

>  Russ, it turns out, is someone whose only way to reply to someone who 
>doesn't agree with him is by raging, ranting namecalling. Of course that 
>sets him up for a few little comments that aren't entirely flattering 
>either, and so I provided a few of those. That predictably ratched-up Russ's 
>anger



The topic is one where stating axioms and actually inferring from them,
runs well. That wording does not suggest that people need to cooperate.
Though wrong ideas get disagreed with.


So I assume you act as if you are pro-IRV 


Is Russ P going to link to your new website ?.

After you split with Russ, I could ask Russ to delete every single
use of the word "sincere". All ballot papers lack a Boolean-valued
sincerity trait.

The website has being lying and saying that STV style ballot papers
contain a sincerity trait.

[It is not good to lie in a mathematics website.]



...
>So then, if we tax capital gains, we're twice taxing your investment income, 
>says Russ.
...
>Apparently to Russ and some others, "supporting the troops" means keeping 
>them over there to be killed or shot-up, not letting them come home when 
>their term is up.


Maybe you put a hyphen into the hostname.

---

PS. When I say that Voters Do NOT Exist, then that is final,

Your rules want to pick a fight with me since their wordings presume that
voters exist.

It could be a struggle with you instead of between me and the rule.

It is more of the unrealism of the website.

---

Here is a picture of mechanical spider (from Star Trek Voyager Elite Force 1).

It has a large pulsating brain. This could be an interim picture of the
EML for the rule manufacturing group. The brain flips upside down when killed and
it squeals.

   http://eliteforce2.filefront.com/screenshots/4/files2/29757_1.jpg

   http://eliteforce2.filefront.com/file/Arachnatron;29757

>Model description  : Oh yes.  The Arachnatron.  He has returned form the
>depths of hell.  This time with a new style.  Let me stress this is NOT
>supposed to look exactly like the arachnatron from DOOM, but is supposed
>to be what I think he should have looked like.  I am especially fond of
>the soft body animation on the brain.  It was completely done by hand
>with bends, twists, and morph targets, over physiqued max bones. ... the
>max bones were extremely difficult to loop well.  // Eric2534.

----




__________________________________________________________________________

 Official Information Acts (1982-1995) by Parliamentary Counsel  006 

 I: Purposes and Criteria 
   5. Principle of availability---The question whether any official
   information is to be made available, where that question arises under
   this Act, shall be determined, except where this Act otherwise
   expressly requires, in accordance with the purposes of this Act and the
   principle that the information shall be made available unless there is
   good reason for withholding it.

http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/reprint/text/1996/se/006se5.html