<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/2/19 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:km_elmet@lavabit.com">km_elmet@lavabit.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class="im">On 02/15/2012 06:08 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
But conditionality-by-mutuality violates later-no-help, and as such,<br></div>
raises the spectre of a DH3 <<a href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/DH3" target="_blank">http://wiki.electorama.com/<u></u>wiki/DH3</a>>-like<br>
scenario.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think you can have burial in methods that pass LNHelp too, unless the method also passes LNHarm. LNHelp-complying methods could still reward a move from, say, A>B>C to A>C>B (where the point would be to keep B from winning more than to get A to win).<br>


<br>
See, for instance, Kevin Venzke's post: <a href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-February/027098.html" target="_blank">http://lists.electorama.com/<u></u>pipermail/election-methods-<u></u>electorama.com/2011-February/<u></u>027098.html</a> , or James Green-Armytage's: <a href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-February/027091.html" target="_blank">http://lists.electorama.com/<u></u>pipermail/election-methods-<u></u>electorama.com/2011-February/<u></u>027091.html</a><br>


<br>
</blockquote></div>I thought that for a LNHelp method, going from A>B>C to A>B=C would be sufficient, wouldn't it?<div><br></div><div>Jameson</div>