[EM] Answers regarding claim about Approval's enact-ability

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Richard Fobes <ElectionMethods at votefair.org
> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying about your signature on the Declaration.
>
> As a clarification, the original document at Google Docs needs an email
> address as part of the signature.  The copy of the Declaration at
> www.BanSingleMarkBallots.org omits the email addresses.
>

What I'm saying is that, at the URL in your paragraph above, my e-mail
address is displayed. No one else's e-mail address is
displayed there. Because no one else's e-mail address is displayed there,
I'm assuming that mine is displayed there by accident. So all I
was requesting is that my signature be like the others in that regard.

For one thing, it makes my signature longer, less brief, than it could be.
For another thing, it must look as I've violated the rules or gained
special permission, when my e-mail address is the only one there.

But I want toi emphasize that there is no urgency, *no urgency, no hurry*,
about that. I don't want it to be regarded as something that you have to do
when there ae competing things to do. It can wait, and, in fact, it doesn't
really matter to me that my e-mail address is the only one
displayed--except that it does look a little funny, and people might say,
"How does *he* rate that privilege of being the one and only contact
there?!"

Thanks for your explanation about the delay in supporting your claim about
Approval's enactability (in comparison to those of Condorcet, Kemmeny,
SODA, MJ, etc.). I certainly agree with replying to messages in the order n
which they were posted.

Let me just add a few comments, though:

1. Though it's too late now, of course, I'll just repeat something that I
said before. If you don't have time to support that statement (for now, at
least), then you shouldn't have had time to make the statement in the first
place.

A good rule: Don't make statements that you don't have time to support.

2. I certainly do not want to hurry you. In fact, I'm not criticizing you
if you don't even try to support your claim at all. (Who could blame
you--it isn't supportable).

3. But, if you don't, then I just want to clarify to everyone that your
claim remains an unsupported claim. I would have no objection to that. I am
not saying that you should support the claim if you don't want to. Leave it
unsupported if you want to.

4. I want to emphasize that, every time that I've said that Approval is the
enactable method, I've told why that is.

5. The subject of which method(s) are the most promising to support,
advocate, work for, is highly relevant to success. Claims regarding that
matter should only be valued according the the justifications offered for
those claims.

>
> Because I seem to be acting in a secretarial role regarding signatures, I
> have less time to answer every question that is asked in this forum. I'm
> still trying to find time to reply to earlier questions asked by Jameson
> and Kristofer.  They have been patiently waiting.
>
> As should be clear from my posts, I have put Declaration-related matters
> to the top of my priority list (including your signature requests!), and
> that pushes other forum-related topics down on my list of priorities (but
> it does not push them off the list).
>
> Collaboration requires respect, and patience.
>
> Richard Fobes
>
>
> On 4/13/2012 10:57 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
>> Richard--
>>
>> No one can fault you for being busy.
>>
>> But, I would just humbly suggest that, if you're too busy to support a
>> statement that you make,
>> it would be great if you could also be too busy to _make_ the statement.
>>
>> Remember that the EM guidelines ask that we be prepared to support our
>> statements.
>>
>> Mike Ossipoff
>>
>>
>> P.S.
>>
>> I'm sorry--I didn't mean to imply that I request my e-mail address to be
>> in my signature. I've noticed
>> that none of the other signatures contain an e-mail address. When I
>> found my e-mail address in the suggested short-version,
>> I left it in my own improved short version, thinking that it must be a
>> standard feature that I hadn't noticed
>> present in the others. Then I noticed that it isn't in the others.
>> Removing my e-mail address would make
>> my signature more in line with the others, in addition to improving its
>> brevity.
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120415/901f67a5/attachment-0004.htm>