sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (02/10/90)
In article <1990Feb7.224449.8453@diku.dk>, stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky) writes: > This is a Call for Discussion of a possible change in the Guidelines for > creating newsgroups (How to Create a New Newsgroup). .. > ================= STV in less than 25 lines ====================== > > Following the discussion period, all names that have been posted (seconded names > appearing first) will be included in an Interest Group Survey > announcement. Each name will be represented by a single character, with "a" > representing "abstain". > > Respondents follow these rules: > > 1. While unmoved characters remain: > Select your preferred name and move its character to the subject line > (place each one after [to the right of] the ones already moved). > > 2. Place an "a" after the character representing the last name you find > acceptable. If you do not support creation of a newsgroup with any of the names, > put the "a" before the options. I don't understand this at all. Let us suppose that there is a call for discussion for an astrology group. The proposer of the group, being a firm believer in astrology, decides that the group should be called sci.astrology. During the discussion, several people point out that they think this group should be called rec.astrology, since astrology is mostly a recreational thing (ITHO), while others say that it should be named talk.astrology, since there will be endless flame wars about the validity of astrology. After a long discussion in news.groups, the call for votes goes out with the three names: 1. sci.astrology 2. rec.astrology 3. talk.astrology Now suppose that voter 1 doesn't care whether an astrology group is created or not, but wants to vote against the name sci.astrology. What would this vote look like? Suppose voter 2 doesn't care what the name of the group is, this person just want SOME astrology group created. What would this vote look like? Suppose voter 3 doesn't think that astrology has any place on the net and opposes any group creation with astrology as a discussion topic. How would this person vote? Voter 4 really likes the idea of an astrology group, but hates the sci.astrology name enough that he/she would prefer to not have a group rather than name it sci.any. I think I can figure out what to do if I want the group created, and have some preference among the names, but how do I vote against a particular name without influencing the vote for the other names as well? And how do I put equal emphasis on ANY name if I don't want to rank them? I think it is about time to revive the discussion about MAUVE, isn't it? Using MAUVE, each of the positions above can be easily expressed. Voter 1: 1. sci.astrology NO 2. rec.astrology ABSTAIN 3. talk.astrology ABSTAIN Voter 2: 1. sci.astrology YES 2. rec.astrology YES 3. talk.astrology YES Voter 3: 1. sci.astrology NO 2. rec.astrology NO 3. talk.astrology NO Voter 4: 1. sci.astrology NO 2. rec.astrology YES 3. talk.astrology YES -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/10/90)
In article <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > 1. sci.astrology > 2. rec.astrology > 3. talk.astrology OK, I'll put this in terms of the modifications I just suggested. > Now suppose that voter 1 doesn't care whether an astrology group is > created or not, but wants to vote against the name sci.astrology. What > would this vote look like? Subject: 32 > Suppose voter 2 doesn't care what the name of the group is, this > person just want SOME astrology group created. What would this vote > look like? Subject: YES > Suppose voter 3 doesn't think that astrology has any place on the net > and opposes any group creation with astrology as a discussion topic. > How would this person vote? Subject: NO > Voter 4 really likes the idea of an astrology group, but hates the > sci.astrology name enough that he/she would prefer to not have a group > rather than name it sci.any. Subject: YES 32 (yes, this isn't as strong a vote as you might like, but given the 2/3 rule it will act as a vote against sci) Preference voting is also an acceptable alternative to the current system, but the name MAUVE has to go. If "Preference Voting" is good enough for the IEEE... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (02/13/90)
In article <Y0O1NG5xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >> 1. sci.astrology >> 2. rec.astrology >> 3. talk.astrology > > OK, I'll put this in terms of the modifications I just suggested. > >> Now suppose that voter 1 doesn't care whether an astrology group is >> created or not, but wants to vote against the name sci.astrology. What >> would this vote look like? > > Subject: 32 Doesn't this vote mean that I am voting FOR 2 and 3? This voter doesn't want to vote FOR anything, just AGAINST sci.*. >> Voter 4 really likes the idea of an astrology group, but hates the >> sci.astrology name enough that he/she would prefer to not have a group >> rather than name it sci.any. > > Subject: YES 32 > > (yes, this isn't as strong a vote as you might like, but given > the 2/3 rule it will act as a vote against sci) Again, there doesn't seem to be any way to vote against a name without voting for something else. I think preference voting (if you prefer that name) has a lot more going for it. Most of my votes in recent times have been against a name, not for anything The problem I have with STV votes (actually non-binding referendums, NOT surveys) is that they are designed to provide two different types of information about newsgroup creation. First, they need to establish that enough interest exists to warrant a newsgroup, and second they need to decide what the name should be. The current guidelines work well for the first purpose, but don't address the second purpose at all. STV, as least as I have seen it proposed so far, can answer the second question, but fails to answer the first question, since there are only votes FOR something, not AGAINST anything. In the examples above, in order to express an opinion AGAINST a sci.* name, a voter must vote FOR something else, thus biasing the "interest" survey. In the examples above, voter 1 would be counted as being interested in rec.* and talk.*, which is not the case. I think Preference Voting (PV) solves this problem, admittedly at the expense of finding the most prefered name. Rather PV will tend to find the least hated name, which may actually be a good thing. Perhaps the least hated name is the best compromise we can come up with. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
martens@ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (02/13/90)
In article <22212.25d6c149@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >In article <Y0O1NG5xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> In article <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >>> 1. sci.astrology I'd have to vote against the formation of any group with a self-contradictory such as sci.astrology. I can't imagine anyone with a quarter brain would consider putting astrology in the sci.* hierarchy, and since there wouldn't be anything worthwhile in the newsgroup anyway, I can't imagine feeling guilty about opposing it's formation. Next thing you know someone'll propose sci.creationism... -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Now that the WBA and the WBC have been merged into the WWF, is the IBF SOL?
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/13/90)
In article <22212.25d6c149@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > In article <Y0O1NG5xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > In article <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > > Subject: 32 > Doesn't this vote mean that I am voting FOR 2 and 3? This voter > doesn't want to vote FOR anything, just AGAINST sci.*. The vote is in to parts: (1) For/against the group, and (2) If the group is created, what name should it have. this voter is abstaining from the vote on the group's existance, and voting for any name but sci. > >> Voter 4 really likes the idea of an astrology group, but hates the > >> sci.astrology name enough that he/she would prefer to not have a group > >> rather than name it sci.any. > > Subject: YES 32 > Again, there doesn't seem to be any way to vote against a name without > voting for something else. But he *did* want to vote for something else. > I think preference voting (if you prefer > that name) has a lot more going for it. Well, the problem with preference voting is that it doesn't provide any way of saying "I like this name more than that name", and all the attempts I've seen so far to allow this have complicated it way more than I'm willing to put up with. And I'm willing to put up with quite a bit of complication. > The problem I have with STV votes (actually non-binding referendums, NOT > surveys) is that they are designed to provide two different types of > information about newsgroup creation. First, they need to establish that > enough interest exists to warrant a newsgroup, and second they need to decide > what the name should be. Right. No single vote is going to do this, which is why I'm proposing that the vote have two independent parts. A YES/NO vote against the group itself, and a transferrable choice on the name. > In the examples above, in order to express an opinion AGAINST a > sci.* name, a voter must vote FOR something else, thus biasing the "interest" > survey. Not at all. The first voter didn't care about the group and abstained from the interest survey. The second voter did care about the group and voted for it, and *also* voted against "sci" in the name survey. > In the examples above, voter 1 would be counted as being interested > in rec.* and talk.*, which is not the case. I think Preference Voting (PV) > solves this problem, admittedly at the expense of finding the most prefered > name. Exactly. PV handles the first part, but fails on the second part: choosing the name. So do as I suggest, and have two separate parts. I don't recall who originally came up with the idea of splitting the vote like this, and I was unreceptive at the time, but kudos to the unknown poster. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
Matthew_Eric_Seitz@cup.portal.com (02/15/90)
As an example of my system, lets try this test case: As a reminder my system of balloting was of the form [preferential name list] ["Y" names which would cause you to vote yes on group creation] ["N" names which would cause you to vote no on group creation] >I don't understand this at all. Let us suppose that there is a call >for discussion for an astrology group. The proposer of the group, >being a firm believer in astrology, decides that the group should be >called sci.astrology. During the discussion, several people point out >that they think this group should be called rec.astrology, since >astrology is mostly a recreational thing (ITHO), while others say >that it should be named talk.astrology, since there will be endless >flame wars about the validity of astrology. After a long discussion >in news.groups, the call for votes goes out with the three names: > >1. sci.astrology >2. rec.astrology >3. talk.astrology >Now suppose that voter 1 doesn't care whether an astrology group is >created or not, but wants to vote against the name sci.astrology. What >would this vote look like? There are two possible ways to interpret this statement 1) Voter 1 wants a name other than sci.astrology to be chosen, but once a name is chosen, doesn't care whether the group is created or not. Vote: 23 This votes for names 2 and 3, but abstains from any other names and from voting on group creation. I realize this is not the same as voting against name 1, but pariliamentary procedure does not recognize a method of single vote multiple choice balloting where individual selections are rejected. 2) Voter 1 doesn't care which name is finally selected, so long as an astrology group with the name sci.astrology is not created Vote: N1 This vote completely abstatins from the name selection vote, abstains from voting on group creation if name 2 or 3 is selected, but opposes creation if sci.astrology is selected as the name. >Suppose voter 2 doesn't care what the name of the group is, this >person just want SOME astrology group created. What would this vote >look like? Y123 This abstains from the name selection vote, but votes yes on group creation for any selected name. >Suppose voter 3 doesn't think that astrology has any place on the net >and opposes any group creation with astrology as a discussion topic. >How would this person vote? N123 Again, abstain from name selection, but oppose creation of the group, no matter what the name. >Voter 4 really likes the idea of an astrology group, but hates the >sci.astrology name enough that he/she would prefer to not have a group >rather than name it sci.any. Y23 N1 This votes yes on group creation with names 2 or 3, but no on group creation with name 1. If voter 4 had a preference on name 3 over name 2, he could also include a preference list befor the creation vote: 32 Y23 N1 >I think I can figure out what to do if I want the group created, and >have some preference among the names, but how do I vote against a >particular name without influencing the vote for the other names as >well? Vote no for group creation on the name you dislike, vote yes on group creation for the name you do like, and don't include a name preference list. See voter 4 above. > And how do I put equal emphasis on ANY name if I don't want to >rank them? Simply list a yes vote for all the proposed names, but don't include a name preference list: Y123 Matt Seitz Matthew_Eric_Seitz@cup.portal.com >USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 >E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (02/16/90)
In article <77031@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, martens@ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes: >>> In article <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > >>>> 1. sci.astrology > > I'd have to vote against the formation of any group with a > self-contradictory such as sci.astrology. I can't imagine anyone with > a quarter brain would consider putting astrology in the sci.* > hierarchy, and since there wouldn't be anything worthwhile in the > newsgroup anyway, I can't imagine feeling guilty about opposing it's > formation. Next thing you know someone'll propose sci.creationism... EXACTLY my point. If we go to some sort of STV voting mechanism, you won't be ABLE to vote against a group like this. The best you will be able to do is vote FOR talk.astrology or some such. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/16/90)
> EXACTLY my point. If we go to some sort of STV voting mechanism, you > won't be ABLE to vote against a group like this. The best you will be > able to do is vote FOR talk.astrology or some such. So combine an STV vote on the name (and STV is the best way I know to select the name) with a YES/NO vote on the group. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (02/18/90)
In article <22242.25da835b@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) writes: >EXACTLY my point. If we go to some sort of STV voting mechanism, you >won't be ABLE to vote against a group like this. The best you will be >able to do is vote FOR talk.astrology or some such. Not only that, STV is a lose. Something that is everyone's 2nd choice can be eliminated.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/20/90)
In article <1783@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: > Not only that, STV is a lose. Something that is everyone's 2nd choice > can be eliminated. And any other voting scheme is also susceptible to voting paradoxes. If you only eliminate names at the top level that becomes very unlikely. When it works, which is almost all the time, it does the best job of any alternate system at finding the most desirable name (as opposed to pereference voting, which gives you the least undesirable name). -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (02/21/90)
In article <-UV1G9Fxds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <1783@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >> Not only that, STV is a lose. Something that is everyone's 2nd choice >> can be eliminated. > > And any other voting scheme is also susceptible to voting paradoxes. > If you only eliminate names at the top level that becomes very unlikely. I guess I must have missed something. What are the voting paradoxes associated with preference voting? > When it works, which is almost all the time, it does the best job of > any alternate system at finding the most desirable name (as opposed to > pereference voting, which gives you the least undesirable name). Wouldn't the "least undesirable name" also be the least controversial? I think we should be looking for the name that is acceptable to the most people. THAT is what PV gives you. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (02/23/90)
In article <-UV1G9Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1783@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >> Not only that, STV is a lose. Something that is everyone's 2nd choice >> can be eliminated. >And any other voting scheme is also susceptible to voting paradoxes. True. >If you only eliminate names at the top level that becomes very unlikely. Why? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this. >When it works, which is almost all the time, it does the best job of >any alternate system at finding the most desirable name (as opposed to >preference voting, which gives you the least undesirable name). I'm not so sure it works most of the time or that it finds the most desirable name. In elections in the UK, for example, in a 3-way election almost everyone's 2nd choice would be the center party candidate, who would be eliminated on the first round. What do you think of "approval voting" (cast one vote for each choice you "approve of", choice with greatest total wins) as alternative system? (For newsgroups, this fairly similar to running votes on all the proposals and then picking the one that won by the greatest majority.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/23/90)
> >If you only eliminate names at the top level that becomes very unlikely. > Why? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this. Only eliminate the losing candidate from the first-round choices, instead of removing it from the ballot altogether. That gives it a chance for a comeback. > What do you > think of "approval voting" (cast one vote for each choice you "approve > of", choice with greatest total wins) as alternative system? That's also an acceptable method, but it doesn't let you say "I like this name more than that one". I think both transferrable votes and approval voting should be added to the guidelines as acceptable alternatives for hotly debated group names. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'