Well, my previous long post on a weakened consistency criterion kind of blew up in my face. So, here's a list of assertions that didn't survive the light of day. This won't make much sense if you haven't already read that post, on the other hand I have trouble recommending you do so at this point.
First, I was wrong about claiming that only Ranked Pairs fitted my rule. Markus's beatpath winner method does as well. This means that my rule doesn't declare a single winner in every case (in violation of my 1-Ranking property). On the other hand, these cases are rather obscure. More seriously, remember how I mentioned that a proof that that rule would pass my consistency property was yet to come? Well, I've now found a contradictory example, so that could be a long wait. Also, not so much an error as a misleading oversight, I neglected to point out that because my consistency property is just a weakening of the usual consistency criterion its easy to show that the normal consistency passing methods are consistent by this standard too. Anyway, I'm still going to hunt for a better group-decision rule. --- Blake Cretney ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
