[EM] James: Part II, strategy terms

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Hi Mike,
	Here's part II of my reply, on the topic of strategy terms:

>	My definition of "burying" is a slightly modified version of Blake
>Cretney's definition. Quoting from my paper:
>	"Insincerely ranking an option lower in order to increase the probability
>that a more-preferred option will win.
>
>I reply:
>
>Ok, just wondered. That could be done offensively or as a deterrent to 
>offensive
>strategy, and I make that distinction. But I don't criticize those who 
>don't.

	Okay. And I'm not trying to imply that your strategy definitions are not
useful. I can see how they are useful. I just think that there is some
merit in grounding strategy discussions in terms that have relatively
simple definitions, e.g. burying, compromising, push-over (Blake's terms).

I reply: They used to say, incorrectly I've recently heard, that the Eskimos 
had 1000 words for different kinds of snow. But even if that isn't true, 
different languages make different distinctions, because different people 
are interested in different distinctions.

I admit that burying, compromising, and push-over are the important thing to 
you. I have no criticism about those things being important to you. You're 
not wrong.

Apparently we aren't interested in the same distinctions, that's all.

By the way, I often use the word "bury" or "burial", meaning to vote a 
candidate lower than you would if you voted your preferences and didn't 
falsify any preferences. I use that term in that way when I speak of 
favorite-burial. You want to give a different meaning to "bury", a meaning 
not supported by the usual meaning of that word. Fine. But you've got to 
distinguish between how you like to define things and how others should 
define things.

You continue:

Your strategic analysis centers on what strategy voters should use to
promote the election of the candidate whom they regard to be the sincere
CW.

I reply:

No, in regards to my criteria and strategy definitions, I'm not interested 
in what strategy voters should use. I'm interested in what strategies they 
should need in order to protect the win of a CW, or to protect majorilty 
rule.

You continue:

This is a useful topic, but I think it's important to get a grounding
in the basics first

I reply:

Excuse me, James. Give me a grounding in the basics :-)

I assume that next you're going to tell me where you believe that I go wrong 
in terms of the basics.

You continue:

, and perhaps to start from a place that doesn't
presuppose the normativeness of a particular algorithm.

I reply:

????

Well, give me a grounding in this basic: I have no idea what "normative" 
means. It isn't that I haven't loooked it up. But the definition that I find 
when I look up "normative" is one that couldn't be consistent with its use 
in voting system discussion. I've begun to accept the fact that "normative" 
is intranslatable, rather like the German word "gar"

You continue:

That is, you start
with definitions that seem to be somewhat "loaded", rather than starting
somewhere a bit more flexible.

I reply:

Oh, ok, so that's what it means to pre-suppose the normativeness of a 
particualr algorithm: "definiltions that seem to be somewhat loaded, rather 
than starting somewhere a bit more flexible."

Thanks for the precise clarification of what you meant.

You continue:


	By the way, what is your term for compromising-compression? "Favorite
betrayal" is roughly equivalent to "compromising-reversal", right?

I reply:

I don't claim to be able to tell you what compromising-compression means, 
but I can tell you what favorite-betrayal means: Votng someone over your 
favorite. If that's what compromising-reversal means, then yes, favorite 
betrayal means the same as compromising-reversal.

I'm the first to admit that I'm not interested in the same facts that 
you'rre interested in. That's why I don't talk about the same things, and 
that's why my definitions aren't your definitions.

I'd said, referring to the objection that my defensive strategy definition 
makes reference to the goal of the strategy:

>Of course, but how is that an awkward way to look at things? Who says that
>strategy must be based on perfect, complete, and reliable informaiton?

	Maybe not an awkward way to look at things. Perhaps just not the most
"basic" way to look at things.

I reply:

As I said in the message to which you're replying, your definitions make 
reference to the intentiions, beliefs and hopes of the voters using the 
strategy. Maybe that would be a good thing for you to keep in mind.

You continue:

I think that it's helpful to define basic
terms like burying and compromising first, and then to work from there
towards terms that include information about whether a voter believed that
a candidate they were trying to help was the sincere CW.

I reply:

There's nothing wrong with telling what you think. But you forgot to tell 
why you think it.
Basically, you're saying that it would be helpful to work from your 
definitions. From your point of view, I don't doubt that that is so, but you 
haven't told why it's so in a more general sense.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/