[EM] Moderating vs suppressing

[Rob Lanphier]

Hi Dave,

The moderation of the Condorcet mailing list is off-topic for the EM
list.  As you are well aware, I have a very open policy when it comes to
the EM list...it's pretty much a free-for-all, because this list was
founded by a group of people who were shouted off a CVD-operated list
for not toeing the party line.  I didn't want to trade one party line
for another.

However, I don't recommend that policy for every list out there.  So,
more power to Jeff if he wishes to moderate the
Condorcet at yahoogroups.com list to keep it on topic (advocacy of
Condorcet legislation, specifically for Washington state).

Over the long haul, I'm happy to add more mailing lists to
Electorama.com, if there's demand and if I feel that a unique need is
being served.  If it turns out that there's a need for a general
moderated Condorcet advocacy list (because Jeff wants
Condorcet at yahoogroups.com to focus on WA state), then I'm happy to
create that.  For that matter, if Jeff wants to move the existing list
over to Electorama, I'm happy to help there, too.

I have dabbled with the idea of using some of the moderation features on
the EM list.  Specifically, I would hope to weed out the following:

*  Blatant personal attacks
*  Off-topic posts (such as the post below)
*  Other violations of policy (see http://electorama.com/em for current
policy)

As it turns out, the Mailman mailing list software used on Electorama
has a very cool feature, which allows for setting the moderation flag on
a per-user basis.  So, I could conceivably put one or two people on
probationary moderation, while letting most emails pass through
unmoderated.  I can also make it so that everyone is moderated by
default, and then clear the moderation flags for those individuals that
show good judgement.

I'm not to that point, yet.  It's a fair amount of work to do.  The
non-trivial amount of spam moderation that occurs is work that I've been
very lax in doing.  Fortunately, Anthony Duff has been doing a fantastic
job of staying on top of this; rarely have I found much laying around
when I've checked.  I wouldn't want to potentially increase his workload
without his opinion on the subject.

However, if the signal-to-noise ratio gets too low on this list, I might
consider making a change (perhaps taking on more moderators to offset
the extra work).

Now, in fairness to you, Dave, your mail isn't /entirely/ off-topic.
Certainly, defining the line between EM and other lists is on topic.  In
fact, many recent discussions that have occurred on the Condorcet list
are discussions I feel pretty strongly should occur here.  Deep
technical discussions about the relative merits of DMC versus
Smith//Approval are much more appropriate here than on an advocacy list.
If you wish to have an unmoderated discussion of that topic, feel free
to have it here.

Thanks
Rob


On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 15:19 -0400, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> I am addressing this to both Condorcet and EM.
> 
> This disagreement needs serious response.  According to Jobst:
>       Jobst's posts to Condorcet are being suppressed by Jeff.
>       Jeff, apparently, is suppressing for disagreeing opinions rather 
> than for unsuitable content.
> 
> Seems to me moderator business is controlling quality of accepted posts 
> without considering agreement/disagreement with personal technical opinions.
> 
> DWK
> 
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:27:34 +0200 Jobst Heitzig wrote:
> Subject:  Re: Rejection of messages on [Condorcet]
> 
> > Jeff, your repeated "not approving" of a posting which utters a
> > different opinion that yours is not acceptable to me. I request you stop
> > this kind of behaviour or appoint a second moderator for those
> > discussions you're personally involved in. After all, moderation
> > requires a considerable degree of neutrality in my view.
> > 
> > Yours, Jobst
> > 
> > 
> > Jeff Fisher wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Jobst, I think you misunderstood some of my comments, so we should go
> >>around privately at least once before troubling the rest of the group
> >>(or dropping this thread)...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>It's only when preferences are trumping each other that approval 
> >>>>might become significant.
> >>>>
> >>>They do not trump each other in the set of those candidates which
> >>>are left after we considered all double defeats.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's already understood. However, to claim the DMC method as its own
> >>justification is a tautology. It begs the question of why it was valid
> >>to drop a doubly defeated candidate when the only pair-wise defeat is
> >>against someone other than the winner.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Immunity from 2nd place complaints... Otherwise a majority could
> >>>boycott the winner...
> >>>
> >>
> >>How does one boycott an office holder? This sounds like a Euro thing
> >>not applicable in the US.
> >>
> >>Whenever there is a Condorcet paradox, any candidate we choose as the
> >>winner is going to face a majority that preferred another.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>one opens the door to "first place" complaints.
> >>>>
> >>>What is this?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Complaints from the candidate with the highest approval rating --
> >>presumably the most popular candidate (but not really, once tactical
> >>voting runs rampant under DMC).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>However, DMC sometimes treats one candidate's 
> >>>>approval as the reason that someone *else* should win, 
> >>>>
> >>>How's that? Please give an example!
> >>>
> >>
> >>I already have... adding approval to your least threatening rival
> >>increases your chances of doubly defeating your most threatening
> >>rival, and it doesn't even matter if you over shoot and boost your
> >>rival's approval above your own, DMC still picks you as long as you
> >>win head to head.
> >>
> >>What this does is motivate factions to add massive approval for
> >>strategically chosen rivals, destroying its meaning as "approval".
> >>We're left with the candidate having the most *first place* votes
> >>being able to control the outcome of a paradox.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>In short, DMC is interesting on its surface, but no more
> >>>>interesting than any other cycle breaker. 
> >>>>
> >>>It's not a cycle breaker.
> >>>
> >>
> >>It is what it is, whether you express it that way or not.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>It does avoid looking at cycles altogether.
> >>>
> >>
> >>It may avoid looking, listening and speaking of cycles, but it breaks
> >>them anyway.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>That's one of the main advantages.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's a mirage, a matter of appearance only. Cycles (Condorcet
> >>paradoxes) can exist, and DMC resolves them whether you want to admit
> >>it or not. You may not deny their existance (and DMC's handling of
> >>them) just because DMC does not identify them on the way to selecting
> >>its winner.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>By using approval data to pick anyone other than the most
> >>>>approved, DMC gives voters an incongruous motivation
> >>>>
> >>>Could you give an example...
> >>>
> >>
> >>I already have. Take a case where the second most approved candidate
> >>wins DMC. There's someone further down the list among the doubley
> >>defeated candidates who beat that winner head to head. If the most
> >>approved candidate sees this coming, then he can win by drumming up
> >>approval for that loser, turning our would-be winner into a doubley
> >>defeated one, leaving #1 as the winner.
> >>
> >>If you are looking for ABC's... You, Kevin and perhaps Forest are best
> >>at manipulating those. I am not a mathematician. If someone can
> >>demonstrate that candidates can never have enough maneuvering room for
> >>insincere approval in paradox cases, then we will all be grateful.
> >>Otherwise, I'll assume that candidates in DMC will be telling their
> >>supporters to falsely approve rivals they beat pair-wise.
> >>
> >>-- JRF
>