I checked those links to my postings about subcycle methods, and in one of those postings, I referred to myself as the "proponent" of one of the subcycle methods.
So, from that, it could be said that I was proposing the method, in a sense. But I was using "proponent" in a much weaker sense than I now do. I wasn´t proposing the subcycle methods in the sense that I now use "propose". I was applying the word "proponent" to anyone who mentions a new method for evaluation.
I wasn´t suggesting subcycle rule 2 for use, because it was a new and un-evaluated method.
I clarified in that same posting that I was mentioning subcycle rule 2 tentatively, pending determination of its faults. I said that it was my responsibility to find its faults, but that information from others about that would be welcome too.
The criteria that I mentioned in those postings were later replaced with better criteria. It later turned out that the goal of the subcycle methods could be met by other methods that don´t violate Pareto.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
