Identity
Filter
Visitors
(2) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 20/11 20:24 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 19/11 21:55 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 18/11 23:18 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 18/11 04:13 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 17/11 22:34 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 16/11 22:42 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Latest posts
- 20/11 20:24 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 19/11 21:55 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 18/11 23:18 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 18/11 04:13 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 17/11 22:34 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 16/11 22:42 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
-
At 04:37 PM 11/15/2006, Mark wrote: >Lomax wrote: > >Mark wrote: >[...] > > >-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again. > > >L: In his opinion. > >-M: If not, then show where my points are wrong.
Mark has mistaken correctness for debate skill. They are entirely two different things.
What I wrote was correct. In Mark’s opinion, he is a good debater. And he has “whupped” those arguing with him. I’m not arguing, I’m stating facts, and I am unconcerned with whether or not what I’m writing shows good debate skills.
L: We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their own debate skill.
-M: I judge myself to be a good debater.
Yes, we knew that already.
Do you debate otherwise?
You’re asking me my opinion? I’m not debating. Debate is quite a process. Rather, I’m just saying what I see. It will ring a bell with some people and not with others. At this point, I’m only looking to ring a few bells, not to convince the world. And when it is time to convince the world, it will probably not be me who is “debating.” There are people far better at that than me.
If so, then do you debate for your own debating skills?
Mark, you are an idiot.
L: Debate is a communication art,...
-M: Debate is about being right, and using the right rule structures.
No, that is correctness. Debate is about convincing people. I learned this the hard way, way back in grade school. Apparently, Mark missed the lesson. I can understand, it was not formally taught. I was right, I’d done my homework, I knew the issues. But somebody else won. Why? Beats me. Maybe they had nicer hair.
That was grade school. But look at the public arena. Reagan rather clearly won his debates with Carter. Was he right? Hardly. Carter was brilliant. But, as I said, debate is a communications skill.
It is not about being right. Rather, it is about attempting to establish that ideas are right to an audience. A good debater can often convince an audience that something is right that is actually wrong. Indeed, in debate contests, what do you think they do? Do the debaters get to pick which side they argue on an issue? Indeed, sometimes, debaters who support one side of an issue may agree to debate with someone who supports a different side. This can make their jobs easier, sometimes. And sometimes it’s harder. It can be harder when you are right, sometimes.
L:...and it is judged by its effect on an audience.
-M: No, its judged by the truth of the points.
Nonsense. That’s not debate. That is “logical argument in support of the truth.” When Mark claimed that he had “whupped” another, he was clearly placing this in the contest realm, where there are winners and losers. Among those who seek the truth, there is no losing when someone else exposes more clearly the truth.
For Mark’s edification, from Wikipedia:
Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and position representational <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument>argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument>logical argument, since it includes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion>persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience>audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.
Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_body>Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders_debate>leaders debates and the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election_debates>U.S. presidential election debates, are common in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>democracies.
L: Shall we vote?
-M: Sure. I vote that my points are all true. I welcome ANYONE to vote that ANY of my points are untrue.
Not the issue. The issue is how well you debate them, and Mark has asked the wrong question.
The question is, and I’m asking it and someone else can turn it into a formal poll if they care
- I don’t -whether or not Mark has “won” his debate with anyone here?And I vote No.
This has nothing to do with whether or not certain arguments presented by Mark are right or wrong. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Mark is “correct” more often than that. Mark, indeed, has a rare understanding of delegable proxy, in certain ways, and, for example, I think he may be correct when he claims that “Page Rank” is FAAV. But the way that he presents his arguments, practically nobody is convinced of anything he claims.
FAAV can have unlimited proxy depth. Depends on what the primary proxies do with their votes (that is, those who received votes in the secret ballot election, which votes may be divided by the voter). If they assign them to a proxy, who may assign them to a proxy, etc., there is unlimited depth unless a depth rule is added, which I would oppose.
Now, do I want DP to be “fractional” like FAAV? No. And I’m not going to debate it here, I simply don’t have time. Mark’s arguments have, however, convinced me that I need to examine more closely what happens when a proxy is inactive. And the solution I see is simply that clients may reach up beyond their proxy to the proxy of their proxy, and that proxies may reach down through their clients to their client’s clients. In FA/DP, this will happen naturally. I expect that mailing lists or the like will be used by proxies for communication with their clients, and I expect some of these lists to include a couple of levels of client-proxy relationship. That is, a proxy may start a list for his or her clients, and the list may allow direct posting, generally, from more than one layer of clients. I see, in an active organization, relatively few direct clients per proxy, and mailing lists can handle much more traffic than what is involved in a single proxy-client relationship. So both client and proxy may belong to a list which includes a whole tree of clients, but which remains below the size where traffic becomes a problem. This whole tree feeds a high-level proxy. And the clients immediately below him or her will themselves be members of even higher-level lists.
The central organization doesn’t need to deal with any of this. It is what the proxies and clients will do themselves, all they need to do is see examples, and they will imitate it. Or they will do something better.
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote: >Lomax wrote: > >Mark wrote: >[...] > > >-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again. > > >L: In his opinion. > >-M: If not, then show where my points are wrong.
L: Mark has mistaken correctness for debate skill.
-M: Correctness is a debating skill. You are talking about rhetorical skill.
I am not interested in this.L: They are entirely two different things. What I wrote was correct. In Mark’s opinion, he is a good debater. And he has “whupped” those arguing with him. I’m not arguing, I’m stating facts, and I am unconcerned with whether or not what I’m writing shows good debate skills.
-M: Your ‘facts’ are still in a debate format. This makes it debate, even if you say you are unconcerned with rhetoric.
L: We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their own debate skill.
-M: I judge myself to be a good debate. [...] Do you debate otherwise?
L: You’re asking me my opinion? I’m not debating. Debate is quite a process. Rather, I’m just saying what I see. It will ring a bell with some people and not with others. At this point, I’m only looking to ring a few bells, not to convince the world. And when it is time to convince the world, it will probably not be me who is “debating.” There are people far better at that than me.
-M: You take positions and counter-positions. This is debate.
M: If so, then do you debate for your own debating skills?
L: Mark, you are an idiot.
-M: If so, then I am one that appears to be having more fun than you.
L: Debate is a communication art,...
-M: Debate is about being right, and using the right rule structures.
L: No, that is correctness.
-M: “Lets have a debate.” “No, I’d rather have a correctness.”
L: Debate is about convincing people.
-M: That is rhetoric. I’ll leave that to the politicians and ideologists. By contrast, I will debate for correctness of systems design.
L: I learned this the hard way, way back in grade school. Apparently, Mark missed the lesson. I can understand, it was not formally taught. I was right, I’d done my homework, I knew the issues. But somebody else won. Why? Beats me. Maybe they had nicer hair.
-M: You had an audience of lemmings.
L: That was grade school. But look at the public arena. Reagan rather clearly won his debates with Carter. Was he right? Hardly. Carter was brilliant. But, as I said, debate is a communications skill. It is not about being right.[...]
-M: It is about being right.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
At 04:42 PM 11/16/2006, Mark wrote: >-M: It is about being right.
Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wants to words, he seems to have no concept that language is a community affair. He imagines that he can be “right” all by himself, manipulating his own symbols and being pleased with them. But truth is not actually in symbols and the relationships of symbols, and the truth of a communication does not exist apart from the recipient.
Mark also imagines that I am debating with him. No, I’m commenting, and he is not my audience, though he can be a member of the audience, if he likes. This is not a secret from him, though he can obfuscate it for himself if he chooses.
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote: >-M: It is about being right.
L: Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wants to words,...
-M: Yes, I can.
L:...he seems to have no concept that language is a community affair.
-M: ”...community…” – by what measure?
L: He imagines that he can be “right” all by himself, manipulating his own symbols and being pleased with them.
-M: In an intersubjective context, as long as I follow the rule structures, that is what counts. In a subjective context, I can still be right on my own. Its still up to y’all to have ears to hear the truth.
L: But truth is not actually in symbols and the relationships of symbols, and the truth of a communication does not exist apart from the recipient.
-M: This is why its not my job to be convincing, its other’s job to be convinced when the truth is presented to them.
L: Mark also imagines that I am debating with him.
-M: As I said, you are presenting positions and counterpositions, this is debate.
Please maintain continuity by not ignoring my points.L: No, I’m commenting, and he is not my audience, though he can be a member of the audience, if he likes. This is not a secret from him, though he can obfuscate it for himself if he chooses.
-M: After all of this, where have you challenged SD2-S and/or its theorectical underpinnings? Are you being a DODGE-MONKEY?
I still have standing points.
How about addressing those?
How about serving the field instead of fucking with an expert?shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
At 05:18 PM 11/18/2006, Mark wrote:
-M: It is about being right.
L: Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wants to words,...
-M: Yes, I can.
Right. He can. His purpose is not communication, but “being right.” If his purpose in writing were communication, he would use the language of the recipient, unless possibly he always defines terms he is using outside the meanings used by the audience (which makes it more difficult for the audience.)
He is here, not to communicate with us, but to create a record of his “being right.”
I frequently fail to communicate with people; I am often writing something which is outside the boxes they know. But I consider it my responsibility to take this into account, wherever I can. That is, my purpose is communication, not “being right.” Of course I try to be right, but that is not how I choose my language, when I am paying attention. If the communication fails, my first assumption should be that I did not say it in a way that the audience could understand. Of course, I’m just like everyone else, I can easily assume that the problem is that they are idiots.
Or lemmings.
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote: > > >-M: It is about being right. > > >L: Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wants > > to words,... > >-M: Yes, I can.
L: Right. He can. His purpose is not communication, but “being right.” If his purpose in writing were communication, he would use the language of the recipient,...
-M: I do use the language of the recipient.
L:... unless possibly he always defines terms he is using outside the meanings used by the audience (which makes it more difficult for the audience.) He is here, not to communicate with us, but to create a record of his “being right.” I frequently fail to communicate with people;
-M: My audience is not commoners. It is those in the field of systems design.
My audience is those who show their worthiness by either already knowing technical terms,
or have the will to use Google.L: I am often writing something which is outside the boxes they know. But I consider it my responsibility to take this into account, wherever I can. That is, my purpose is communication,...
-M: It is also your responsibility to communicate in a point-by-point format to maintain the linearity and continuity of discourse.
L: not “being right.” Of course I try to be right, but that is not how I choose my language, when I am paying attention. If the communication fails, my first assumption should be that I did not say it in a way that the audience could understand. Of course, I’m just like everyone else, I can easily assume that the problem is that they are idiots. Or lemmings.
-M: ...Or unworthy.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
-
-
-
-
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote: >Lomax wrote: > >Mark wrote: >[...] L:[...] Rather, it is about attempting to establish that ideas are right to an audience.
-M: ‘Audience’ – WTF is that? Measured by what c-algorithm, and under what time limit? The truth often takes time to grow on people,
and truth influences some more than others.L: ...A good debater can often convince an audience that something is right that is actually wrong. Indeed, in debate contests, what do you think they do?
-M: This is why I demarcate rhetorical debate from analytical debate.
And SD2-S is about selecting those who would be more honest with their methods,
as well as those who can see past deceptive and convoluted methods.L: Do the debaters get to pick which side they argue on an issue? Indeed, sometimes, debaters who support one side of an issue may agree to debate with someone who supports a different side. This can make their jobs easier, sometimes. And sometimes it’s harder. It can be harder when you are right, sometimes.
-M: Being right is usually easier analyticly, but is usually harder rhetoricly.
L:...and it is judged by its effect on an audience.
-M: No, its judged by the truth of the points.
L: Nonsense. That’s not debate. That is “logical argument in support of the truth.”
-M: Which is debate. Do you debate otherwise? What if you don’t convince me?
L: When Mark claimed that he had “whupped” another, he was clearly placing this in the contest realm, where there are winners and losers.
-M: Yes, the winner is the one with the burden of proliferating the truth.
Such a person is a hero who must be respected.L: Among those who seek the truth, there is no losing when someone else exposes more clearly the truth.
-M: The loser is one who doesn’t respect the teacher. Otherwise, yes, there are no losers when truth is proliferated.
L: For Mark’s edification, from Wikipedia: Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and position representational <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument>argument.
-M: OK.
L: Debate is a broader form of argument than <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument>logical argument, since it includes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion>persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience>audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.
-M: This is more complex than it seems.
L: Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_body>Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders_debate>leaders debates and the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election_debates>U.S. presidential election debates, are common in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>democracies.
-M: In the above example there is a predefined c-algorithm by which to measure the audience approval.
Is there a predefined measure for ALL situations?
I don’t think so,
this is why debate being measured by audience approval is rather slippery.L: Shall we vote?
-M: Sure. I vote that my points are all true. I welcome ANYONE to vote that ANY of my points are untrue.
L: Not the issue. The issue is how well you debate them, and Mark has asked the wrong question.
-M: BS, it is about the points.
L: The question is, and I’m asking it and someone else can turn it into a formal poll if they care
- I don’t -whether or not Mark has “won” his debate with anyone here? And I vote No.-M: Cute. So where are my points wrong? Where has ANYONE beat me with a SINGLE point?
I have argument SUPREMACY, and I challenge you to show otherwise. You seem to want Mark to be wrong and his points to follow, even if they are right. Emotional bias?
Is this because I have whupped you?
How about showing some respect to your teacher?L: This has nothing to do with whether or not certain arguments presented by Mark are right or wrong. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Mark is “correct” more often than that. Mark, indeed, has a rare understanding of delegable proxy, in certain ways, and, for example, I think he may be correct when he claims that “Page Rank” is FAAV. But the way that he presents his arguments, practically nobody is convinced of anything he claims.
-M: How do you know? There are people here who understand Markov-algorithms, even if you are to entrenched to study them on your own.
L: FAAV can have unlimited proxy depth. Depends on what the primary proxies do with their votes (that is, those who received votes in the secret ballot election, which votes may be divided by the voter). If they assign them to a proxy, who may assign them to a proxy, etc., there is unlimited depth unless a depth rule is added, which I would oppose. Now, do I want DP to be “fractional” like FAAV? No. And I’m not going to debate it here, I simply don’t have time.
-M: To recap, I support SD2-S as a form of FAAV because it gives the voters more choice.
Lomax seems to want to limit choice out of convenience or ease of calculation.
He prefers one proxy. By contrast, I want 2 or more general proxies, and one or more specialist proxies.L: Mark’s arguments have, however, convinced me that I need to examine more closely what happens when a proxy is inactive. And the solution I see is simply that clients may reach up beyond their proxy to the proxy of their proxy, and that proxies may reach down through their clients to their client’s clients.
-M: With SD2-S, since there are multiple proxies, the other proxies fill in for the inactive proxy. If less than 2 active proxies are selected, then RD voting power is given to underdogs to help smooth the rank distribution curve. The voter still maintains DD powers.
L: In FA/DP, this will happen naturally. I expect that mailing lists or the like will be used by proxies for communication with their clients, and I expect some of these lists to include a couple of levels of client-proxy relationship. That is, a proxy may start a list for his or her clients, and the list may allow direct posting, generally, from more than one layer of clients. I see, in an active organization, relatively few direct clients per proxy, and mailing lists can handle much more traffic than what is involved in a single proxy-client relationship.
-M: ”...a proxy may start a list for his or her clients, and the list may allow…”
May, may, may.
If you don’t have a ‘turn-key’ system, then why should the user develop one?
This is why I am pushing for a SD2-S-Wiki.L: So both client and proxy may belong to a list which includes a whole tree of clients, but which remains below the size where traffic becomes a problem. This whole tree feeds a high-level proxy. And the clients immediately below him or her will themselves be members of even higher-level lists. The central organization doesn’t need to deal with any of this. It is what the proxies and clients will do themselves, all they need to do is see examples, and they will imitate it. Or they will do something better.
M: ’...examples…’ – what I like to hear. :)shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
