Author: Roger
Date: 22:26:04 01/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 15:36:27, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On January 23, 2000 at 14:06:56, Roger wrote: > >> >> >>The idea is to minimax likes and dislikes. Your example is perfect. If you have >>a highly polarized situation, then you two camps, by definition. Each camp LOVES >>its candidate and HATES the candidate of the opponent camp. If either camp were >>to win control, the members of the opposite camp would be in an uproar, and >>would cause trouble, or might leave the group (note that I am not saying that >>these things are inevitable given a polarized group, I am saying that this is >>the definition of polarized). >> >>Consequently, the two groups tend to cancel each other out, and candidates that >>are acceptable to all sides move forward. After all, the members from the >>opposing camps are minimaxing their dislikes, too. >> >>The candidates may indeed be perfectly fine, morally upstanding people with high >>IQs, but not from the perspective of their respective opposing camps. :) >> >>Roger > >We aren't selecting _one_ moderator, though. We are selecting three. > >In the above scenario, both major candidates will be elected, and a third person >as well, who might well end up breaking a few ties in moderation votes. :) > >Dave I never said we were selecting _one_ moderator. I said that extreme groups tend to cancel each other out, and that candidates (plural) more acceptable to both sides move forward. In the situation where you have two large minorities whose platforms are mutually exclusive (All group A vote against group B, All group B vote against group A), NEITHER candidate gets elected, not both. Obviously, this extreme example is not like CCC, but even in the extreme example above, candidates from groups C and D will move forward, being less liked overall, but also less disliked. The result is the group stays together, and while it's existence isn't exactly wonderful, it survives, whereas if a moderator from group A were elected, group B would be very dissatisified and might well leave the group, resulting in fragmentation. Accordingly, voting for and against minimaxes likes and dislikes and maximizes group cohesiveness, though that doesn't always mean everyone is HAPPY, as the example above shows. Our situation in CCC doesn't even begin to resemble this, and accordingly, voting both for and against platforms (notice I didn't say a person) ought to work out well. Roger
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.