Talk:Essential Questions: Difference between revisions
imported>James Green-Armytage No edit summary |
imported>KVenzke No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'd rather replace "must" with "should" on a lot of the questions... [[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 06:34, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT) |
I'd rather replace "must" with "should" on a lot of the questions... [[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 06:34, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT) |
||
I found a number of items confusing:<br> |
|||
to make people vote "honestly": Does this mean "permit people to vote honestly," or does it really mean to ''force'' honest voting somehow?<br> |
|||
to give both majorities and minorities a fair amount of power: What can this mean, other than a [[Random Ballot]] component?<br> |
|||
Approval information (e.g. cutoffs) should be used: I prefer to get Approval information by using limited ranks, rather than having a cutoff along with a ranking.<br> |
|||
Approval information should be interpreted as cardinal rates of, say, 0 or 1: Not sure what the alternative is.<br> |
|||
Ranking X and Y equal means X and Y should get the same probability of winning: I get the feeling that this is an effort at describing the WV justification. I'd rather say that "ranking X and Y equal means that neither should get in the way of the other winning."<br> |
|||
Freedom of preference expression is more important than anti-strategic properties: What can this mean? What kind of "freedom"? It seems to me that if you can safely express preferences, then this is already an anti-strategic property.<br> |
|||
Efficiency is more important than simplicity: Does "efficiency" mean "general goodness"? |
|||
[[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 20:12, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT) |
|||
Revision as of 03:12, 12 June 2005
I'd rather replace "must" with "should" on a lot of the questions... James Green-Armytage 06:34, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT)
I found a number of items confusing:
to make people vote "honestly": Does this mean "permit people to vote honestly," or does it really mean to force honest voting somehow?
to give both majorities and minorities a fair amount of power: What can this mean, other than a Random Ballot component?
Approval information (e.g. cutoffs) should be used: I prefer to get Approval information by using limited ranks, rather than having a cutoff along with a ranking.
Approval information should be interpreted as cardinal rates of, say, 0 or 1: Not sure what the alternative is.
Ranking X and Y equal means X and Y should get the same probability of winning: I get the feeling that this is an effort at describing the WV justification. I'd rather say that "ranking X and Y equal means that neither should get in the way of the other winning."
Freedom of preference expression is more important than anti-strategic properties: What can this mean? What kind of "freedom"? It seems to me that if you can safely express preferences, then this is already an anti-strategic property.
Efficiency is more important than simplicity: Does "efficiency" mean "general goodness"?
Kevin Venzke 20:12, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT)