On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:25:08 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I am
not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This
Then shouldn't we
Manoj:
I think I must be missing something major here (sorry:I've had
less than an average of 5 hours of sleep a night for the last 10 days
or so, and in my old age my faculties are failing me)
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:07:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yes, you're missing something.
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:50:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This whole discussion tells me that the original proposal (with
Manoj's s/quorum/.../ change, for consistency) should be up to that
task.
Cool. All we need is the other sponsors to agree (though I
agree with the
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:50:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This whole discussion tells me that the original proposal (with
Manoj's s/quorum/.../ change, for consistency) should be up to that
task.
Cool. All we need is the other sponsors to agree (though I
agree with the
On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent,
how can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
This whole discussion tells me that the original proposal (with
Manoj's s/quorum/.../ change, for consistency) should be up to that
task.
Cool. All we need is the other
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:50:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
providing code for telepathically determining the
Andrew == Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew ? As far as I can see, all you need is enough D voters
Andrew that B voters can cause D beats A.
But if B voters can cause D beats A, how is this not honest? If I'd
rather see B win or no decision made I rang A below D,
On Thu, 22 May 2003 13:06:34 -0400, Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ah... then I was confused. Replace M(A,default) = R with
V(A,default) = R and M(A,default)0 The V(A,default =R clause
comes from your proposed A.6.2, and the M(A,default)0 clause comes
from your proposed A.6.3.
On Mon, 26 May 2003 13:42:03 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
Guido Trotter wrote:
If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no
problem with the proposed system, why not add to the current
proposal the fact that the votes cast, altogether, have to be at
On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:18:18 -0400, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
... and also more likely than if a plain Condorcet method were used.
Which complicates the analysis, because it's easy to construct cases
where B voters can beat A with strategy under both Condorcet+SSD and
On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:18:18 -0400, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
... and also more likely than if a plain Condorcet method were used.
Which complicates the analysis, because it's easy to construct cases
where B voters can beat A with strategy under both Condorcet+SSD and
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This whole discussion tells me that the original proposal (with
Manoj's s/quorum/.../ change, for consistency) should be up to that
task.
Cool. All we need is the other sponsors
Manoj:
I think I must be missing something major here (sorry:I've had
less than an average of 5 hours of sleep a night for the last 10 days
or so, and in my old age my faculties are failing me)
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:07:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yes, you're missing
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent, how
can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable, and are
voting honestly, from people who would consider A
15 matches
Mail list logo
