[EM] Responsible discussion. Forum etiquite. Not EM's topic.

[Michael Ossipoff]

[quote]
What I object to is his failure to follow normal forum etiquette.
[endquote]

Realistically, what level of discussion-responsibility is normal at EM?

When dealing with dishonest or irresponsible discussion tactics or
behaviors, frankness is called for.

It is that frankness that leads some people to cry "Foul!".

"It's ok if I keep repeating already-answered claims, without
responding to the answers, but it's a violation of forum-etiquette if
you call me on it."

"And it's a violation of forum-etiquette if you try to guess what I
mean,when I haven't well-specified it."

[quote]
My recent request, which he has dismissed, is basically the same request
that Jameson has made.  Specifically, Michael writes what he claims is a
summary of what someone else has said, but his version is intentionally
twisted.  And then he criticizes that misinterpreted "opinion."
[endquote]

People at EM often don't make it very clear what they mean. Sometimes
it's necessary to guess. If I guess wrong, then I'm accused of
intentionally "twisting" their meaning. No, I often don't claim to
know their meaning, and merely try to guess it.

A little bit of intentional vagueness leaves a person room to back out
of something that they imply...and then indignantly claim that someone
has twisted their meaning, or put words in their mouth. That's a
common dishonest or irresponsible discussion tactic at EM, and
elsewhere on the Internet. During my time at EM, I've had the
opportunity to encounter pretty much all forms of Net-abuse.

Forgive me if I try to translate someone's vagueness into a concrete
statement that can be replied to.


[quote]
The reason for my concern is that I -- and others -- have made efforts
to invite to this forum anyone who is interested in learning more about
election methods, and Michael's frequent criticisms make it unlikely
that people following this forum will feel comfortable asking questions.
They are likely to assume, probably correctly, that Michael will
criticize them if they express any preferences or opinions that do not
match Michael's preferences and opinions.
[endquote]

No, I don't criticize anyone for disagreeing with me. I don't
criticize anyone until their Net-abuse takes the typically-inevitable
ugly ad-hominem form.

I've always been polite to newcomers, and, in fact, to anyone who
hasn't been otherwise to me.

[quote]
Another concern is that some people following this forum will believe
all (or most) of what Michael says simply because currently he is so
prolific, and because he sounds like he understands election methods.
[endquote]

If Richard wants to say that there is misunderstanding of mine that
invalidates what I say, then he needs to specify it. Of course he
doesn't. One of the things that I _do_ criticize here is vague
implications like that, which aren't even specified, much less
supported.

[quote]
This problem has already manifested itself. Someone on Wikipedia
requested that the Favorite Betrayal Criterion (FBC) -- that Michael
speaks of so lovingly -- should be moved from the last column to the
first column of the "comparison table" in the "Voting system" article --
because of its importance. Apparently the person has been believing what
Michael has been writing here and/or at Democracy Chronicles.
[endquote]

If someone agrees with something that I say, Richard wants to assume
that that means that I've wrongly influenced them.

What do we have, in Richard's account above?

1.I've told why FBC compliance is essential, under current conditions.

2. Someone agrees with my arguments to that effect.

3. Richard, with an unstated assumption that my FBC advocacy is wrong,
proclaims that therefore anyone who agrees with my arguments must have
been
wrongly influenced by me.

FBC compliance is absolutely essential, under current conditions,
because when voters have strategic need to bury their favorite, that
makes nonsense of the election-results.

Forgive me if someone agrees.

[quote]
The person
was surprised to learn that very few academic articles refer to the FBC.
[endquote]

I must confess that I don't share Richard's unconditional inclination
to follow the academics, in the matter of voting systems, and their
evaluation.

Maybe the academics don't read EM?

[quote]
Of course Michael is likely to misinterpret this statement to mean that
I do not appreciate the importance of FBC. Instead, my actual opinion is
that I do not regard importance as a "yes" or "no" category. Rather,
importance is a continuous dimension because something can have
importance only to the extent that other things have less importance.
Specifically, I would rank FBC in the lower half of the
"important-for-elections" scale, but that is different than saying it
has no importance.
[endquote]

Fine, if you can convince others that making garbage of the election
result, by giving people strategic need to abandon their favorite, is
of "lower-half" importance.

[quote]
I realize that in spite of my multiple attempts (both here and at
Democracy Chronicles), Michael continues to dismiss most of what I say
to him.
[endquote]

I've repeatedly asked Richard to specify at least one particular
instance of my "dismissing" what he or someone else has said, instead
of answering it. Richard, instead of responding to that request,
prefers to just repeat the unsupported and specified accusation.

[quote]
It is not directed to Michael O. because he dismisses feedback.
[endquote]

See above. I've repeatedly asked Richard to specify at least one
particular instance of my "dismissing" something that he or someone
else has said, instead of answering it. Richard, instead of responding
to that request,prefers to just repeat the unsupported and unspecified
accusation.

[quote]
My goal is to make it clear -- to others here -- that Michael does not
speak for all of us.
[endquote]

I've made it clear that I make no claim to speak for everyone at EM.
In fact, the notion of speaking for everyone at EM doesn't make any
sense, because not everyone at EM agrees on everything.

But I make no claims whatsoever about speaking for anyone else. That
isn't my purpose here.


[quote]
And that his criticisms do not hold lots of
credibility with other participants here.
[endquote]

Richard is speaking for eveyone now.  My criticisms are about
dishonest or irresponsible discussion tactics or behaviors, or the
outright ad-hominem rudeness that Net-abuse typically descends to.

I suggest that it's meaningless and pointless to speculate about how
many people agree or disagree with my criticisms.

I'll note that at least one person said, at EM, some days ago, the
same thing that I've been saying about the nature of
irresponsible-at-best discussion behaviors at EM.

[quote]
My hope is that this recognition will help the rest of us to conduct a
healthy dialogue here on this forum
[endquote]

Is that what you call it

[quote]
in spite of Michael's lack of forum
etiquette.
[endquote]

My "lack of etiquette" consists of mentioning instances of
irresponsible discussion behaviors, or dishonest discussion tactics.
...Or maybe my efforts to guess the meaning of vague statements.

This whining about etiquette  leads me to point out that I post about
voting systems. But look at the huge volume of postings text that are,
instead, about an individual participant at the forum.

[quote]
...the person who dismisses what I write.
[endquote]

See above. Richard has never cited an instance of that alleged
dismissal of what he or anyone has said.

I've disagreed with things that have been said, and told why. But I
haven't "dismissed" them, as dictionaries define "dismiss".

Michael Ossipoff