2011/11/8 robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]> > On 11/7/11 2:24 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > >> Robert: >> >> /I'd said: >> >> />/ I've watched someone vote in a rank-balloting presidential mock >> />/ election. Though she >> />/ prefers Nader's policies to those of the Democrats, she ranked all of >> />/ the Democrats >> />/ over Nader. >> >> / >> You replied: >> >> it depends on how the ranked ballots are tabulated. >> >> [endquote] >> >> Quite. >> >> ... > >> >/ Is there an FBC-complying method meets UP and SDSC and that does >> />/ better by other criteria? >> />/ >> />/ Is there an FBC-complying method that doesn't fail in the Approval >> />/ bad-example? >> />/ >> />/ ...and maybe that also meets at least 1CM and 3P. >> />/ >> >> / >> too much alphabet soup going on here. >> >> [endquote] >> >> >> We typically abbreviate the names of criteria, using the initial letters >> of >> some of the words of their names. >> >> >> > On 11/7/11 2:47 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > How about a new rule? We only get to abbreviate if there's an electowiki > > article / redirect at the abbreviation name (preferably linked from the > > abbreviation), or if we've fully spelled it out earlier in the same > message. > > > I unilaterally promise to follow this rule. This might be annoying to > have to > > do sometimes but it would more than pay for itself if others followed > suit. > > > On 11/7/11 2:49 PM, Andy Jennings wrote: > >> I like it! I'll follow it. >> >> > how 'bout also refraining from ALL CAPS, the use of a really dumb text > quoting protocol (is that what Hotmail does for you?) that makes it very > difficult to read, and the assumption that one speaks for the group when > they've been around for an entire month. >
R B-J, I sympathize with what you're asking for here, but I think it would make for healthier group dynamics if you contained your frustration in a more civil tone. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
