Meta-Tool

[Thomas von der Elbe]

Aahh, I think I can see why we don´t understand each other. It´s just a 
misunderstanding!!

With "Vote-Mirroring" we always had in mind to mirror the proposals 
together with their votes. So the list of proposals gets longer in each 
engine *and* the number of votes increases. Sorry, if I didnt make this 
clear enough.
Thats why Martin and Friedrich were so much concerned about the 
slightest differences. Of course we could never sum up the votes of two 
proposals from different engines, if they would even just differ in one 
comma.

And thats the reason, why Martin (below) comes up with the solution to 
"always sync the proposals with the votes"? If I understand you right, 
Martin, then this is indeed what we had in mind.

To mirror the discussion too, is not possible, I agree. So we would have 
to make it clear, that these proposals in engine A are just reflections 
of the ones in engine B and the discussion about them is going on over 
there.

Was this all just a misunderstanding?

Thomas



Martin Häcker schrieb:
>> Is there anything wrong with these translations?  I'm trying to find a
>> well-intentioned translation that goes wrong.
>>     
>
>
> Lets try an example:
>
> Two engines with the same voting technology but with different proposals.
> * They all vote on the same law-text, so they should work together
> * If there are all different proposals but one that is the same (e.g. keep the status quo) that can be mapped. One case where this could go bad is if this leads to the case where the 'keep the status quo' option gets the majority on votes on both systems (if the mapping is bidirectional) even though on each engine vastly different proposals would win without the mapping.
>
> This could only be prevented IMO if you always sync the proposals with the votes - but this requires even more mapping with more difficulties. (And IMO requires to also bring abroad the arguments for and against the proposals)
>
> I think this is pretty pathological - anybody got an even more pathological case?
>
> Regards,
> Martin