[EM] I don't oppose hosting of the "journal" by DC

[Michael Ossipoff]

(regarding Jameson's explanation of his proposed "journal" 's policy)

Sure, then who could disagree with that. So one amateur can't exclude
an article--He can merely rule on its "acceptability", and (at least
by implication) he can pretend to rule on its validity.

I guess the puzzling thing is the matter of purpose.of or need for
such a "journal". I mean, other than because one or two people want to
play scientist.

I mean, it isn't as if definitions of methods and criteria, or
criterion compliances, or the relation of one compliance implying
another, are a source of controversy at EM.

There has been some very small amount of dispute EM regarding
criteria, when Jameson was all confused about my system of
preference-criteria (criteria whose premise mentions preferences, as
opposed to mentioning only ballots). Mentioning that dispute doesn't
mean that I'm willing to re-enter it.

People have offered different definitions of criteria at EM, but a
definition isn't something that can be proved or disproved, nor is it
a matter of controversy. Define a criterion as you like, as long as
you're application of it is consistent with your definition of it.

No, compliances and definitions haven't been controversial at EM, for
the most part. There haven't been disagreements about what method
meets what criterion, or whether 2 criteria are equivalent, or about
how a criterion is or should be defined.

Long ago, I explained what the problem is, and what the disagreement
is: Each method advocate, but, especially, each rank-method advocate,
has his own favorite criteria that he uses to justify his favorite
method.

As I've said, with innumerable rank-counts, "justified" by all
different criteria, there's no chance of more than one or two people
agreeing on which rank-count to support or advocate. You can forget
all about a rank method ever being adopted or enacted.

Anyway, to continue, what is needed, for any progress to be made, is
for method advocates, and advocates of a criterion's importance, to
actually justify their criterion or criteria.   Tell others why that
criteria should matter to them.

Is it about the avoidance of a really undesirable strategy need or
incentive, or an undesirable offensive strategy opportunity?

If so, then how intolerable is that strategy incentive or need? Why?

Or is it just the way that you say is right, the way that it should
be, for its own sake?

Or is it important because a violation of it could be successfully
used against a public proposal to enact a voting system?

So, a junior-journal for discussion of criterion compliances,
definitions, implication-relation among compliances, doesn't fill any
need. The need, instead, is for justification of criteria, and
comparison of their importance. Only in that way can there be progress
in voting system discussion.

And, more broadly, of course it isn't only criterion compliances that
matter. It's also feasibility, as judged by chance of enactment, and
count-fraud-vulnerability. Yes, there's a criterion about
precinct-summability. But some precinct-summable methods (such as the
various Condorcet versions) still are extremely computation-intensive,
and therefore count-fraud-vulnerable, in comparison to Approval.

Mike Ossipoff





.



> I guess I haven't been clear, because you are misunderstanding here. The
> wiki hosting the journal would not be censored (except to control spam).
> It's just that only articles which got unanimously positive reviews would
> get the extra stamp of being considered "published" in the journal.
> Basically we'd be saying, we believe that these are worthy of citation.
> Anybody who doesn't care about that extra stamp could still cite other
> content. But there are some people and institutions which do care about that
> kind of imprimatur. Like wikipedia, and many scholars.


>
> I'm not interested in continuing to argue with you about this. I just wanted
> to clear up that one point.
>
> Jameson