alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (11/15/89)
Looks like it's about time for me to step in again ... putting in my toe ... well, not scalding yet ... ;-) In article <29474@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: >The problem lies in the straight YES/NO format, without preferences. > >Basically, I think that this format will lead to a lot of second-best, >slightly unsatisfactory names. <... goes on to promote STV because it >will pick names people want the most> I think that there are two things worth pointing out here. Yes, MAUVE encourages people to vote for any group name they find acceptable. Yes, it will lead to the group with the most YES votes (no matter how tepid) winning in stead of the group with the STRONGEST yes votes (which is what STV and other ranking schemes try to do). Where I disagree with you is that I think this is a GOOD thing. Usenet exists by consensus. Usenet should be ruled by consensus. This means (IMHO) that the weak support of a lot of people is a lot more important than the strong support of a few people. The main reasons that I have seen for people being upset with both the old 'Backbone Cabal' and Richard's 'power play' is that consensus was violated. Lack of consensus leads to massive flamage. The second reason is that any sort of ranking procuedure is more complex, more difficult to explain, have pathologies and 'indeterminate' results (if you eliminate group B first then group D wins, but if you eliminate group C first then group A wins), more likely to be rigged (I'm voting proposal A as #1 instead of proposal C (which is my REAL first choice) because I don't think C can pass so I want it to die quick to give more support to A), etc. I've always felt that ranking voting schemes without pathologies fundamentally could not be developed, I'm amused to see that it has been mathematically proven. -- --------| Fall not in love, therefore. It will stick to your face. Alien | - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien