[EM] Clarification

[Michael Ossipoff]

I'd said:

And, because preferrers of MJ could strategically
0-rate Approval and Score, I didn't want to co-operate with tha

[endquote]

...when it could result in my MJ winning instead of one of my favorites.

I'd said:

If you equal top-rate a compromise in a poll, and then notice that the
compromise has acquired more points than your favorite, then maybe you
have been had.

[endquote]

Of course the whole point of giving points to a compromise is just in
case the compromise _does_ end up with more points than your favorite,
and is therefore the candidate that you can help to beat someone
worse. So, the only objectionable thing about the above scenario would
be if Favorite would have otherwise won, but didn't, because of
strategic downrating by Compromise's voters.

I'd said:

Someone else wasn't as co-operative as you were. It
happens often in polls. Just because you give their candidate a good
rating, doesn't mean they give one to your candidate.

[endquote]

Again, it isn't that every rating should be reciprocated, or that you
don't want Compromise to pull ahead and outpoll Favorite. That might
be the only way you'll have a way to beat Worse.  The idea is just to
avoid helping strategic 0-rating take the win from your favorite(s).
If Compromise gets a large total, more than Favorite, then your little
SFR boost might well be enough to help hir win.  ...but with a
relatively small chance of giving it away to Compromise if s/he
otherwise has a lower total.

Mike Ossipoff