[email protected] writes: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 03:44:01 PM [email protected] wrote: >> [...] potential malicious manipulation attempts in the poll >> results I gathered [...] > > PSA about Arne's data: > - The said potentially malicious votes are included in Arne's data. > - Some results are truncated to 0 bytes > - There's also an extra result which I don't know where it came from. > - Also, results of at least two contributors are missing. > > -> Please lets not make this subject of the result discussion yet, it's > incomplete and potentially includes bogus data. > > > > To Arne: > > I would be really happy if I could please ask you to have some more patience > for me to finish the main publication. > I ask for this because volunteering doesn't combine well with the time > pressure to have to deliver something before someone else does. > This is the environment of a competition, but I'm neither winning a price nor > being paid for this. So I would enjoy it some more if the work environment > could be non-competitive. > > It should be possible for me to finish the results this week. > You can still post your alternate interpretation then. > > It may happen sooner if you tell me you do not expect me to read the 385 line > Python script before.
I do not expect anyone to read the Python script, except to see whether I made mistakes in the implementation. Mistakes could move tasks a bit up or down. But that’s not the point. (see my answer to the next paragraph) > Of course it's really nice that you bothered to write that much of Python, but > voting on something can only be democratic if people understand how their > vote > is used. It's questionable whether the participants can be bothered to read > all that Python. And while Ian's originally proposed method could turn out to > not be the most sophisticated, it is at least very easy to understand. > > I had already some days ago contacted you about your request to use different > methods for result evaluation and asked *why* they would be better. > So if you want them to be used, perhaps please just provide an answer to > that, > I don't see any yet? I had already written about them, but to make it clear: They aren’t better. They are equally good. Which means that just using one results misleads people into thinking that the results are clearer than they actually are. Mean, median and Condorcet are the three obvious choices, and they disagree on the order of tasks. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
