[EM] Kevin, 17 March, '05, 0320 GMT

[Kevin Venzke]

Mike,

--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> wrote:
> You replied:
> 
> That would be missing the point. If WDSC makes a meaningful guarantee, there
> shouldn't be a silly, meaningless way of satisfying it.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> WDSC doesn't make a guarantee, meaningful or otherwise. Methods that comply 
> with WDSC make a meaningful guarantee.

> Yes, WDSC is really a minimum requirement for a barely adequate method. 
> What's wrong with defining a modest bare minimum requirement?

> >Kevin continued:
> >
> >As a first
> >guess, I suggest: "If a majority of all the voters vote A in first or equal
> >first, and B in last or equal last, then B mustn't win." If that doesn't
> >resemble Mike's intention
> >
> >I reply:
> >
> >...and it doesn´t resemble WDSC.
> 
> But it implies WDSC, is easier to check, and doesn't allow silly methods of
> compliance.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> When you say that your criterion implies WDSC, you mean that compliance with 
> it implies compliance witih WDSC. That doesn't mean that your criterion is 
> valuable, or should be considsered as a substitute for WDSC.

Above you call WDSC a "minimum requirement for a barely adequate method."
So why would you doubt that my *stricter* version of WDSC is valuable or
useful?

Actually, I don't believe WDSC or my stricter version are very useful.

Kevin Venzke


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com