EM list-- Markus objected to the use of the sincere CW (SCW) in a definition of offensive or defensive strategy. I also expected someone to object to my offensive strategy definition by saying that our best methods will sometimes elect a majority-beaten candidate when there's a not-majority-beaten one, and so that, using some unspecified voting system, strategizing to make Tideman's winner win instead of PC's winner would be called "offensive strategy" by that definition. I answered Markus's objection in a separate reply just before starting this message. As for the other objection, the one that I wrote above, maybe it means that I should have stuck with my older offensive strategy definition. Here's how I've defined defensive & offensive strategy for years: Strategy: Departure from sincerely voting every preference or rating that the voting system allows to be expressed, for the purpose of improving one's outcome. Defensive strategy: Strategy used by a member of a certain majority, for the purpose of electing someone whom everyone in that majority want to elect, or preventing the election of someone whom everyone in that majority want to prevent from being elected. Offensive strategy: Strategy intended to take victory from a sincere CW and give it to someone whom the strategist likes better than the sincere CW. [end of those 2 definitions] Yesterday I added something about the SCW to the defensive strategy definition, and something about majority to the offensive strategy definition, for the sake of making the definitions more similar and opposite. But if some people don't like the SCW being in the defensive strategy definition, those people are unlikely to object to the majority-based definition that I stated above, and which is the definition that I've been using all these years. As for the offensive strategy definition, I don't talk about offensive strategy to the public anyway--defensive strategy, and the need for it, is, to me, the important thing, and is what my & Steve's criteria are about. I only talk about offensive strategy on this list, where we all agree with the desirability of the SCW winning. (And the importance of the SCW goes beyond any partisanship, criterion or method, due to what Riker pointed out, as described in my other e-mail that I just sent). I admit that the majority part of yesterday's offensive strategy could offend some, because it implies that Tideman's winner is worse than PC's winner, when PC chooses outside the Smith set. So, for now, at least, I retract that definition that I wrote yesterday. I'm going back to the definitions that I've been using for years, of offensive & defensive strategy, the defintions stated above in this message. But, just between you & me, we probably agree that protecting the win of the SCW, that natural winner, really should qualify as defensive strategy too. Which defensive strategy definition do you prefer, the one that I wrote above, or the one that adds that protecting the win of an SCW is defensive strategy too? Which offensive strategy definition do you like better, the one that I wrote today, above in this message, or the one that I wrote yesterday, which also speaks of trying to change victory from a not-majority-beaten candidate to a majority-beaten one? For now, the definitions stated near the beginning of this message are the definitions that I use, but I'd change one or more of them to the definitions I stated yesterday if people prefer those. Is the SCW's win fundamentally natural enough to include the SCW in the defensive strategy definition? Or does that sound too partisan? Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.