[EM] Criteria reply

Sun May 22 04:14:21 PDT 2005

Dear Mike Ossipoff,

it makes a big difference whether someone (1) made an
error, was pointed to this error, and then stopped making
this error or (2) made an error very many times, was
pointed to this error several times, wrote each time
"Thank you for pointing me to this error. I made this
error because I mistakenly believed that ..." and then
each time continued making this error.

You are the latter case. That's why I say that you use
your claim, that you hadn't understood the Schulze method,
as an "argument" for claiming that you "devised" the same
method ("SSD", "CSSD", "BeatpathWinner") independently
of me.

By the way: You had understood the Schulze method
sufficiently to observe that "SSD is equivalent to
Schulze's method" when you proposed SSD. I don't know
what you claim to have not understood about the Schulze
method. But it is obvious that this has nothing to do
with the question whether you "devised" SSD independently
of me.

********************************************************

You wrote (22 May 2005):

> I fully admit that I didn't know then what you meant by
> "Schulze method". And, as for your posting of CSSD, I
> hadn't read it, and therefore didn't know what count
> rule you were describing. So yes, I hadn't heard of CSSD.

The very first time that the term "Schwartz Sequential
Dropping" (SSD) was being used was on 18 Feb 2000 in a
mail by you. Already in that mail, you wrote that "SSD is
equivalent to Schulze's method". Therefore, it isn't quite
clear what you now try to achieve by saying that you
didn't know the Schulze method.

********************************************************

You wrote (22 May 2005):

> I've never claimed credit for Schulze's method. I don't
> even know what it is.

Again: The very first time that the term "Schwartz Sequential
Dropping" (SSD) was being used was on 18 Feb 2000 in a
mail by you. Already in that mail, you wrote that "SSD is
equivalent to Schulze's method". Therefore, it isn't quite
clear what you now try to achieve by saying that you don't
know the Schulze method.

You wrote to Russ Paielli that the Schulze method was an
"Ossipoff method" and that those who promote the Schulze
method without your explicit permission don't have "any
pride or self-respect" (14 May 2005). If this doesn't mean
to claim credit for the Schulze method, then what does it
mean to claim credit?

You wrote (22 May 2005):

> No, don't bother telling me again; if I wanted to find
> out what it is, I'd look in the archives.

You don't have to look in the archives. You can also read
my paper:

http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~ncj/comp303/schulze.pdf
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/submissions/csharman-10_0409201706-143.pdf
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/demexp-dev/2003-09/pdflQW7IlpAfC.pdf
http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE17/I17P3.pdf

********************************************************

You wrote (19 May 2005):

> I'd come up with CSSD during the Debian discussion, when
> Norm criticized SSD for its lack of clone independence in
> small committees.

I wrote (19 May 2005):

> In this case, "Norm" refers to me. I wrote (24 July 2000):
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-July/004146.html

You wrote (22 May 2005):

> Actually, no. In this case, "Norm" refers to Norm. (Norman
> Petry). I don't care what you posted about that. CSSD was
> devised because Norm, not you, objected to SSD's lack of
> clone-independence in small committees, during the Debian
> electioni-reform discussions.

Please forward that mail where "Norm criticized SSD for its
lack of clone independence in small committees"! As far as
I remember correctly, you "devised" CSSD because I, and not
"Norm", "criticized SSD for its lack of clone independence
in small committees". But I would also like to know what
"Norm" wrote about that.

********************************************************

You wrote (22 May 2005):

> How do the archives show that I knew that SSD was your method.
> When I introduced SSD, I posted it as a new method, making no
> reference to any method of yours. So it's odd that you imagine
> that the archives show not only that SSD is your mehtod, but
> also that I knew that it was :-)

Again: The very first time that the term "Schwartz Sequential
Dropping" (SSD) was being used was on 18 Feb 2000 in a
mail by you. Already in that mail, you wrote that "SSD is
equivalent to Schulze's method". Therefore, it isn't quite
clear what you now try to achieve by saying that you made
no reference to any method of mine.

********************************************************

I wrote (18 May 2005):

> You want to know what's wrong with that? Well, on the
> one side you claim that you are having quite productive
> discussions with other people off-list. And on the other
> side, you neither forward nor save such discussions.
> Do you have some kind of politics like "discuss in a
> constructive manner only off-list"?

You wrote (19 May 2005):

> I had very productive offlist discussions. Excluding you
> [= the EM mailing list] from that discussion was Norm's
> suggestion, not mine.

I wrote (19 May 2005):

> So you say that "Norm" suggests that you shouldn't forward
> interesting mails to this list? Who is this "Norm"? Norman
> Petry? Norman Petry isn't an active member since 3 years.

You wrote (22 May 2005):

> It was Norm who suggested excluding you from the Debian
> electoral reform discussion. The discussion was a few years
> ago, when Norm sometimes posted to EM. For another thing,
> the matter of whether or not Norm was on EM at that time
> is quite irrelevant to what I said.

Well, you wrote that you don't forward interesting off-list
mails (even when they could support your claims) because Norm
told you, more than 5 years ago (!!!!!), not to do this.
I suggest that everybody of this list should post a mail to
you in which he writes that you should now forward those
off-list discussions that you had in the past and that
could be of interest for this mailing list and that Norm
had told you not to forward.

********************************************************

You wrote (19 May 2005):

> At the time that SSD was devised, and when Steve proposed
> the BeatpathWinner Criterion, I wasn't on the list.

I wrote (19 May 2005):

> For the sake of completeness, Steve Eppley used the term
> "Schulze criterion" for what Mike Ossipoff now calls
> "BeatpathWinner Criterion". Steve Eppley wrote (23 Feb 2000):
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003600.html

You wrote (22 May 2005):

> I don't call anything the "BeatpathWinner Criterion". I have,
> however, referred to Steve's Beatpath Criterion (BC). After
> making that statement above, Markus then osts a quoted posting
> from Steve, in which Steve names and defines the Beatpath
> Criterion (Not the BeatpathWinner Criterion). Markus says that
> Steve calls his criterion the "Schulze Criterion", but if you
> read the posting that Markus quotes below, you'll find that
> what Steve actually said was that his Beatpath Criterion isn't
> overboard like Schulze's Criterion. Not quite the same thing?
> Markus, this shows that you're all confused, and that you
> haven't a clue what you're saying or what you're quoting.
> The thing is-is, this is a prime example of Markus'
> carelessness about the accuracy or inaccuracy of his
> statements.

Already in another mail, I pointed to the fact that the set
of candidates who can be elected according to Steve Eppley's
beatpath criterion is _not_ the same as the "set of
BeatpathWinner winners". Therefore, I would be very happy
if Mike Ossipoff stopped using these two terms as if they
were synonymous terms. See here:

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015661.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015665.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015668.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015669.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015670.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015671.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015672.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015674.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015681.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015684.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-April/015686.html

Markus Schulze