<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Kevin,<BR></DIV>
<DIV>You wrote (25 Jan 2009):</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"I think there ought to be a clear distinction between criteria whose<BR>violation is "absurd" no matter what the circumstances, and criteria<BR>whose violation is "absurd" due to other available options."<BR></DIV>
<DIV>I don't see why (particularly).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"There are very few (named) criteria whose failure I'd call "absurd" no<BR>matter what."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of those criteria, which is the one you consider to be the least absurd?</DIV>
<DIV>(Or if you can't say, just name some.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Does your question mean that this really is how you view the<BR>> difference between CDTT and Mutual Majority, is in terms of<BR>> the candidates of the winning set sharing a probability pie?"<BR>> <BR>> Not exactly. No-one has ever suggested "MM,Random Ballot" as a </DIV>
<DIV>> good method and few have suggested that sometimes the clearly most<BR>> appropriate winner is not in the MM set (as I have regarding the CDTT set).<BR><BR>"I think that either isn't relevant or doesn't help your case."<BR><BR>Then you can regard "that" as a rhetorical aside. To answer your question again</DIV>
<DIV>I would say that way of putting it seems too mild to me, but I can't see that it's</DIV>
<DIV>irrational.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"The question is about why you view MM's behavior as qualitatively different<BR>from CDTT's behavior, when in practice, in a real method, it's exactly the same </DIV>
<DIV>behavior."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a previous message I think I made it clear that I don't accept that it is "exactly</DIV>
<DIV>the same behavior".<BR></DIV>
<DIV>[I don't accept that 'being tossed out of the favoured (not excluded from winning)<BR>set' is exactly "the same phenomenon" as 'being joined by others in the favoured set'.]<BR><BR>"Well, supposing that the public decided to accept a method that failed<BR>a positional criterion, I guess at that time I would drop that criterion."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Does that mean that you think all "positional criteria" have no value other than to appease<BR>misguided members of the public?<BR></DIV>
<DIV>"Hypothetically if the public were willing to accept any method I would<BR>propose to them, and not question any of its results, then I wouldn't care<BR>about appearances. I would just give them the method that I felt would<BR>perform the best."<BR></DIV>
<DIV>In this context, what do you mean by "appearances"? How can a method that you "feel </DIV>
<DIV>performs the best" have (in your eyes) anything wrong with its "appearance"?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chris Benham<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><BR>Hi Chris,<BR><BR>--- En date de : Ven 23.1.09, Chris Benham <<A href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au" ymailto="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</A>> a écrit :<BR>> "I can't see what's so highly absurd about<BR>> failing mono-append. It's<BR>> basically a limited case of mono-raise, and one that<BR>> doesn't seem<BR>> especially more important. Is it absurd to fail<BR>> mono-raise?"<BR>> <BR>> The absurdity of failing mono-append is compounded by the<BR>> cheapness of<BR>> meeting it. As with mono-add-plump the quasi-intelligent<BR>> device is given<BR>> simple and pure new information. Being confused by it is<BR>> simply unforgivable<BR>> *stupidity* on the part of the<BR>> quasi-"intelligent" device.<BR><BR>I find it unclear how to decide whether something is unforgivably stupid<BR>in your
view, or instead mitigated by something like this:<BR><BR>> Regards mono-raise, I would say that failing it is<BR>> obviously 'positionally absurd'<BR>> and 'pairwise absurd' but perhaps not 'LNH<BR>> absurd'. We know that it isn't <BR>> "absurd" in the sense that mono-add-plump and<BR>> mono-append is, because it is <BR>> failed by a method that has a "maximal set" of <BR>> (IMO) desirable criterion compliances .<BR><BR>It seems to me like a real problem that the absurdity of failing a<BR>criterion can depend on whether better criteria require that it be<BR>failed. I think this is just "cheapness" again. Failing mono-raise<BR>isn't absurd, because mono-raise is relatively expensive.<BR><BR>I think there ought to be a clear distinction between criteria whose<BR>violation is "absurd" no matter what the circumstances, and criteria<BR>whose violation is "absurd" due to other available
options.<BR><BR>There are very few (named) criteria whose failure I'd call "absurd" no<BR>matter what.<BR><BR>> > Can I take it then that you no longer like <BR>> > "CDTT,Random Ballot", which does award<BR>> > a probability "pie"?<BR>> <BR>> "Sure. Does your question mean that this really is how<BR>> you view the<BR>> difference between CDTT and Mutual Majority, is in terms of<BR>> the candidates<BR>> of the winning set sharing a probability pie?"<BR>> <BR>> Not exactly. No-one has ever suggested "MM,Random<BR>> Ballot" as a good method and few<BR>> have suggested that sometimes the clearly most<BR>> appropriate winner is not in the MM set<BR>> (as I have regarding the CDTT set).<BR><BR>I think that either isn't relevant or doesn't help your case. The<BR>question is about why you view MM's behavior as qualitatively different<BR>from CDTT's behavior, when in practice, in a real
method, it's exactly<BR>the same behavior. If the important thing is how many people suggest<BR>that the clearly best winner is not in the MM or CDTT sets, then there<BR>doesn't seem to be a good reason to bring up mono-add-plump.<BR><BR>> > The criterion/standard is an end in itself. Not<BR>> > everything is about the strategy game.<BR>> > Higer SU with sincere voting and sparing the method<BR>> > common-sense (at least) difficult -to-counter<BR>> complaints <BR>> > from the positional-minded are worthwhile<BR>> accomplisments.<BR>> <BR>> "This strikes me as an unusual amount of paranoia that<BR>> the method's<BR>> results can't be explained to the public's<BR>> satisfaction unless it's<BR>> similar to Approval."<BR>> <BR>> It isn't just "the public". It is myself<BR>> wearing my "common-sense positional" hat. And it<BR>> isn't just<BR>> "Approval", it's 'Approval
and/or<BR>> FPP'.<BR><BR>Well, supposing that the public decided to accept a method that failed<BR>a positional criterion, I guess at that time I would drop that criterion.<BR>Hypothetically if the public were willing to accept any method I would<BR>propose to them, and not question any of its results, then I wouldn't care<BR>about appearances. I would just give them the method that I felt would<BR>perform the best.<BR><BR>Kevin<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></div><br>
<hr size=1>
Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. <a href="http://au.rd.yahoo.com/galaxy/mail/tagline2/*http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox" target=_blank>Take a look</a>.</body></html>