alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/12/89)
In article <3315@watale.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >Erland Sommarskog <sommar@enea.se> writes: >> ... etc ... etc ... etc ... writes: Various talk about voting systems for multiple names ... There is a much easier way to solve all this, simply, understandably, and without all the mess that I've seen proposed. When a call for votes is proposed, include ALL proposed names. Each person voting votes yes/no on EACH name. A voter simply votes YES on all the names he would find acceptable, and NO on all the names he does not. You then apply your acceptance criteria (which right now seems to be simply delta between YES and NO votes) to each. The best one wins, and if the best one has a high enough threshold the group becomes reality. Let's see how this could be used to cut through the alt.aquaria mess. The proposal goes out: : Vote among the following: :sci.aquaria - :rec.aquaria - :rec.aquarium - :rec.fish - :rec.pets.aquaria - :rec.pets.aquarium - :rec.pets.fish - Some valid votes would be: :sci.aquaria - YES :rec.aquaria - YES :rec.aquarium - NO :rec.fish - NO :rec.pets.aquaria - NO :rec.pets.aquarium - NO :rec.pets.fish - NO :sci.aquaria - NO :rec.aquaria - NO :rec.aquarium - NO :rec.fish - NO :rec.pets.aquaria - NO :rec.pets.aquarium - NO :rec.pets.fish - NO :sci.aquaria - NO :rec.aquaria - YES :rec.aquarium - YES :rec.fish - NO :rec.pets.aquaria - YES :rec.pets.aquarium - YES :rec.pets.fish - YES This is the sort of thing that anyone could understand. If the voting ended up coming out: NAME YES NO sci.aquaria - 84 116 rec.aquaria - 164 36 rec.aquarium - 44 156 rec.fish - 2 198 rec.pets.aquaria - 146 54 rec.pets.aquarium - 32 168 rec.pets.fish - 11 189 Then rec.aquaria would be the winning name, and the difference of 164-36=128 means the group goes through. Please consider this. And please, don't get this confused with the debate on whether to use absolute difference, 100 NOs, ratios, or whatever. This multiple vote system allows any kind of acceptance criteria to be used. The nice thing is that it provides total flexibility and keeps the influence of power plays to a minimum. -- --------| Sometimes I feel like a ball Alien | in the great pinball game of life. --------| - Steve Steir decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
kayvan@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) (10/12/89)
>>>>> "Alien" == Alien Wells <alien@cpoint.UUCP> writes:
Alien> There is a much easier way to solve all this, simply,
Alien> understandably, and without all the mess that I've seen
Alien> proposed.
Alien> When a call for votes is proposed, include ALL proposed names.
Alien> Each person voting votes yes/no on EACH name. A voter simply
Alien> votes YES on all the names he would find acceptable, and NO on
Alien> all the names he does not.
I *like* this idea!!!
It's simple and seems to have all the advantages of many of the other
voting schemes proposed.
---Kayvan
--
Kayvan Sylvan @ Transact Software, Inc. -*- Los Altos, CA (415) 961-6112
Internet: kayvan@Transact.COM -*- UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,mips}!mrspoc!kayvan
= Interested in story telling group? Mail yarn-spinners-request@transact.com =cathyf@rice.edu (Catherine A. Foulston) (10/12/89)
In article <KAYVAN.89Oct12023250@mrspoc.Transact.COM> kayvan@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) writes: >>>>> "Alien" == Alien Wells <alien@cpoint.UUCP> writes: Alien> When a call for votes is proposed, include ALL proposed names. Alien> Each person voting votes yes/no on EACH name. A voter simply Alien> votes YES on all the names he would find acceptable, and NO on Alien> all the names he does not. Kayvan>I *like* this idea!!! Kayvan>It's simple and seems to have all the advantages of many of the other Kayvan>voting schemes proposed. Kayvan> ---Kayvan I like it too! It also allows easy abstention, for those who don't care. If you don't want sci.painting for naming reasons, but you don't care about (or don't think you are qualified to vote on) rec.painting, then you submit a NO vote for sci.painting and you don't submit any vote on rec.painting. -Cathy Cathy Foulston cathyf@rice.edu =||= ...uunet!rice!cathyf =||= CFOUL00@RICEVM1[.bitnet] A bit of tolerance is worth a megabyte of flaming. --Henry Spencer But if you *must* flame me, do the group a favor and use email. -- me
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (10/13/89)
In article <2673@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > When a call for votes is proposed, include ALL proposed names. Each person > voting votes yes/no on EACH name. A voter simply votes YES on all the names > he would find acceptable, and NO on all the names he does not. > > You then apply your acceptance criteria (which right now seems to be simply > delta between YES and NO votes) to each. The best one wins, and if the best > one has a high enough threshold the group becomes reality. I think this is a great idea. It's as flexible as the modified-STV rules we've tossed around, but is very simple to both understand and use. There's only one small detail to be worked out, though. How do you decide which of the passing names (i.e., those that meet the 100-vote requirement or the criterion du jour) is the overall winner? The one with the most YES votes? The one with the fewest NO votes? The one with the best YES/NO ratio? I think, perhaps, fewest NO votes would be best; the path of least resistance, so to speak. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/13/89)
In article <2673@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > When a call for votes is proposed, include ALL proposed names. Each person > voting votes yes/no on EACH name. A voter simply votes YES on all the names > he would find acceptable, and NO on all the names he does not. Hmmm. This sounds much like the proposal I made in a previous article <14035.2530882d@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>. I would suggest a slight modification. Rather than listing the possibilities in the call for votes, just let everyone write in their choices, with wild cards allowed. Then I could send in a vote like: sci.* NO rec.pets.* NO rec.aquaria YES This would allow everyone to expess opinions about both the group creation and the name in one vote. A vote like "* YES" would mean that the voter would like the group created, reguardless of the name. "Sci.* NO, rec.* YES" would me that the voter is against any group in the sci heirarchy, but for any group in rec. I think this system of voting would allow us to select a name at the same time we are deciding if the group should be created. If no name passes the criteria (whatever they are), then the group wouldn't be created. If several names pass, then we would need to develop criteria for selecting among the alternatives. We might use fewest NO votes, or greatest percent of YES votes, or just about anything else. -- 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 "The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage." -- Mark Russell
jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (10/13/89)
| | Alien> When a call for votes is proposed, include ALL proposed names. | Alien> Each person voting votes yes/no on EACH name. A voter simply | Alien> votes YES on all the names he would find acceptable, and NO on | Alien> all the names he does not. | | Kayvan> I *like* this idea!!! | Kayvan> It's simple and seems to have all the advantages of many of the other | Kayvan> voting schemes proposed. | | Cathy> I like it too! It also allows easy abstention, for those who don't | Cathy> care. If you don't want sci.painting for naming reasons, but you don't | Cathy> care about (or don't think you are qualified to vote on) rec.painting, | Cathy> then you submit a NO vote for sci.painting and you don't submit any | Cathy> vote on rec.painting. I like it too! It provides a simple way to end these endless flame wars. Jim Winer -- The opinions expressed here are not necessarily and do not represent nor in any way imply of any other sane person and especially not employer. "I'd like to see this petty bickering ended so we could get to some more important bickering." -- David Bedno