The same language is used in both cases
I reply:
Well the wording is different.
Paul replied:
If you say so.
I reply:
On EM, when we speak of named strategies, such as Strategy A, or Best Frontrunner, or Threat/Promise, etc., then we�re discussing ways that a person could vote in Approval. Suggestions for how someone could vote in Approval. Most of those strategies, including all the ones that I suggest, are intended to maximize the voter�s expectation in the election. They differ in what kind of estimates they require.
You were saying that that could be confused with strategy vulnerabilities, but when that�s being discussed, people usually explicity say "This method is vulnerable to tlruncation", etc. As I was saying, though, I don`t consider vulnerability to strategy to be the important strategy problem of voting systems. I�m more concerned about the voter�s need to use defensive strategy--the range of situations in which that can be necessary, and the degree of drasticness of the strategy needed.
But people, including me, are pretty explicit when discussing that too.
If postings seem unclear about whether they�re about strategy suggestions or methods�strategy vulnerabilities, could you specifically point to the wordings that are ambiguous about that? If they are, and if you point to the ambiguities, then I�m sure that whoever is being ambiguous would be glad to clarify their meanings better, when you point out what is ambiguous.
You continued:
, so it can be confusing when is concerned about the latter but finds the former irrelevant.
I reply:
Surely you�re not saying that you believe that how to vote is irrelevant.
You replied:
No, what I am saying is that you don't use English very clearly.
I reply:
You�re generalizing, and that doesn�t tell us anything. You need to point to a specific instance in which something is said unclearly. There�s no way I can tell you what I meant, or clarify a term that I�ve been using unless you say exactly what it was that was unclear.
I�d be glad to tell you what I meant by something, and say it more clearly next time, but first you�d have to do your part by specifying exactly what wasn�t said clearly enough.
You continued:
And evidently don't read it very well, since you reply to a different topic than the one I mentioned.
I reply:
You didn�t mention ambiguity about the distinction between strategy suggestions and methods�strategy vulnerabilities?
You continued:
I said, when you're talking about how voters should behave, say so. And when you're talking about how an election method works, make it a little more clear.
I reply:
So far so good, but it would be easier to clarify it if you�d say exactly which wording was unclear, and in what way it was unclear. Then I could tell you what was meant by it, and word it differently next time.
You�re unnecessarily getting all in a huff. Just say which wordings were unclear. The goal of postings is to make a point or, make information available, or advocate something; and of course, for that purpose, it�s necessary to say things clearly. So I�d be interested in any unclarity in something that I�ve been saying. You�re saying that there�s been ambiguity regarding strategy suggestions vs methods�strategy vulnerabilities, and I would be glad to say it more clearly, if you�d tell exactly what wording was unclear. Not just as a courtesy, but also because I�m not making my point very well, or getting the information out very well if the wording is unclear.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
