Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 

> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:49:47 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <branden@debian.org> said:
>>
>> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Is it?  Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and
>> >> you are missing the whole point of a community of people finding
>> >> common cause to create a free operating system.
>>
>> >> Sure, if having your way win is worth ore than coming to a
>> >> cnosensus, you can vote insincerely.  Sounds kinda silly to
>> >> spend a whole lot of time on Debian, when you are really
>> >> contributing to infighting and intractability, just because you
>> >> do not know how to be a team player.
>>
>> > Why the personal attacks on people who are interested in
>> > discussing what is (to date) only a hypothetical flaw[1] in our
>> > Standard Resolution Procedure?
>>
>> What personal attacks?

> Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> personal attack.  How else is one to interpret "you are really
> contributing to infighting and intractability" and "you do not know
> how to be a team player"?  Are they in some way complimentary, or do
> they somehow provide insight into our Standard Resolution Procedure?

	If you are voting insencerely, and delibrately using majority
 to defeat options that are not preferred, you are short sighted, not
 a team player, and contributing to infighting and intractability. Are
 you asserting people voting insincerely and/or adding false
 amendments are team players working for the good of all?

	I am really getting confused about how you view these tactics
 that you appear to disdain in some messages, and attack other people
 for condeming in others.

>> How is my restatement different from your characterization oif
>> insincerity?

> Well, that's pretty easy.  I stated from the outset how I was using
> that term, which was in its technical sense.

	Ah. So, the technical term, insincere, is an attribute of team
 players you are working cooperatively with other people, and all
 these fake amendments are also works of team players and non anti
 social elements after all. Colour me confused.

	Would you make up your mind if you are promoting or condeming
 these practices?

>> I am stating that it is not smart to try and use majority to shut
>> out options, since that leads to no decision being taken.

> Can you elaborate?  It is not obvious to me what relationship this
> statement has to my hypothetical scenario.

	Umm. I see. Your hypothettical scenario had nothing to do with
 insincere voting? Why are you going on about insincere voting then?

>> Why is it that You can get away with saying that people vote
>> insincerely when they state a that they prefer status quo to some
>> proposition,

> If people don't actually prefer the status quo over a proposition
> but rank the status quo as preferred to the proposition on your
> ballot, you're voting insincerely.  I am using the term in its
> technical sense.

	But you are still being a team player, and you are not
 contributing to infighting, and are being tractable? (I mean, you
 violently objected to my calling the insincere voter these things)

> I must admit to being a little boggled at your apparent ignorance of
> this, as you participated vigorously in the long discussions that
> led to this year's amendment of our voting method, and even, as far
> as I can tell, used the term in that technical sense yourself on at
> least one oaccasion[2].

	No. I object to your blindly labelling people who genuinely
 prefer further discussion to some option as insincere voters. Or are
 you saying that people should not be able to express a preference for
 the status quo at all, even if that is what they want? If not, how
 can you allow people who prefer further discussion from expressing
 their preference, in your zeal to stamp out so called insincere
 voting? 

>> and when I characterize that strategy as short sighted it is a
>> personal attack?

> Well, if you're using terms like "short-sighted", "infighting",
> "intractability", and "team player" is some specialized technical
> sense, then it isn't.  Are you?

	I am saying that people who vote in a manner that does not
 represent their true preferences merely to defeat some option may be
 "short-sighted", are   "infighting",and displaying  "intractability",
 and  not being a "team player". You have objections to that? Tough.

>> I am merely stating that the so called smart strategy is really a
>> dumb one.

> Let it be noted that you're the person introducing the term "dumb"
> into this conversation.  I personally am not sure its're warranted,
> due to its crudity and high emotive content.

	Calling attempts to make your less preferred option fail
 majority by mistating your preferences a smart policy is wrong; I do
 think it is a dumb idea in the long run.

	manoj
-- 
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that
can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at
Princeton)
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C