On 2024-07-22 10:39, Kevin Venzke wrote:

I don't think we should "vote people off" in a mechanical manner.

But we can tell the admin (Rob) about disruptive posting, and he can
make a decision about whether to kick anybody off. It's ultimately his
list :-)

-km

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject.  The "voting" thing that I
started led to me learning A LOT about the social dynamics of this list.
It would seem that the people who spout the most vitriol often have the
thinnest skin.  I suppose that shouldn't be surprising to me, but ... well,
live and learn.  I've always appreciated your participation in this mailing
list, and I'm glad I've never been the recipient of your vitriol.  Please
don't start  ;-)

I think just having a discussion about when I should bring the banhammer
down has been useful.  It's a little surprising to me the level of
expertise of the people still convene on this mailing list, and I
appreciate having all y'all here.  I haven't yet seen ANY online forum that
has the right mix of moderation tools and moderators to truly get things
right, but this latest flurry of drama has reminded me that there's more
work to do.

Rob

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:39 AM Kevin Venzke stepjak@yahoo.fr wrote:

Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: "It's ultimately his list :-)"

Yes, yes it is.  God help me.  ;-)  Yeah, I'll admit that even though I'm
paying for the domain and hosting fees and so on (and investigating
alternatives to my current host), I haven't read very much of the traffic
lately.  That's a bit why I may seem out of the loop at times, and why I
let not-so-great behavior persist.  Y'all talk over my head a lot when
you're talking substance (which is fine), but I find I just don't have the
emotional endurance to deal with dramatic personal disputes.  My hunch is
that other readers of this mailing list also don't have the time/interest
to read bickering between two members of this mailing list, any more than
most folks on this mailing list probably wouldn't enjoy going to a
restaurant where an angry couple is loudly bickering and namecalling within
easy earshot of all of the other tables.  It doesn't matter which member of
the couple is correct; they're both annoying, and almost everyone would
hope that restaurant management does SOMETHING about the angry couple.  I
don't really want to get into the restaurant business.  ;-)

Anyway, I'm hoping the tenor of the mailing list improves over the next few
days.  It seems plausible (now) that it will, though there's at least one
member who is on a very, very short leash for mischaracterizing a private
email that I sent to them.

Rob

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 5:31 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km-elmet@munsterhjelm.no> wrote:

The goofy thing is, I have check and I never received any of these posts from Kevin Venzke stepjak@yahoo.fr nor from Toby Pereira tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk (that MO referred to) nor from most other posts that I see now at the archive http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-July/thread.html .

I checked my spam folder and nothing from [EM] in that.

So there is something wrong with the list server because I am not getting many posts.  Earlier I was seeing just a monologue from MO and sometimes a back-and-forth between MO and MG.  A couple of posts from Rob.  A couple from Kristofer and Closed Limelike Curves.  That's it.

I can see in the archive that there were many posts from people besides those from MO and MG (that I was getting tired of) but almost none of those posts came to my email.

I dunno, has anyone else had this problem of not getting about half of the posts made to the list?  Rob, is there some known thing about the list server that's doing this?  What is the server?  (The only one I have ever heard of is majordomo.)  I wonder if most list recipients are missing posts when they compare their Inbox to the list archive?

Oh, and about the topic at hand, I wasn't in favor of banning anyone (yet, anyway).  Just talking with them and scaling back the number of really low-quality posts which would then increase both the median and average quality of the posts on this list.  After all, there are some giants in the field that are part of this list and, in the past, the list quality was very high.

And to Michael Garman; it's never my intention that you're chased offa the list.  But some of us are rightly suspicious of, dismayed with, and unimpressed with FairVote and the arguments FV (or RankTheVote) put forth to push IRV to the detriment of the core values that RCV is meant to promote.  So please, remain here, continue to advocate for Hare RCV if you want.

But don't expect us to let the falsehoods go without challenge.  You just cannot truthfully say that Hare RCV (or any RCV) will guarantee that the winner gets over 50% of the vote.  That lie, one of which that comes from the RCV organizations, must be refuted every time it is spoken or written.  At one time I saw Rob Richie and FV scale that back and include qualification like "over 50% of the 'active votes'", but even so, the impression they're trying to leave is a false impression.  And that has no excuse.

It would be as if I would claim that Condorcet always guarantees that there is no spoiler.  (But I will claim that if there is a Condorcet winner and the Condorcet winner is elected, there are no spoilers.)

And I know that Michael Ossipoff has been with this list from before the time I joined in 2009 just after the Burlington fiasco.  I think MO knows his shit better than I do.  It's mostly about the high-volume, low-quality thing of recent times where it seemed like his was the only voice we could hear in the room.

robert

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.

On 2024-07-23 20:45, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

I changed my email address before rejoining the list, and I found that
my email host initially classified a considerable fraction of the list
mails as spam, including Toby's. I dealt with this by turning off the
spam filter, but it's possible your host has an upper spamminess
threshold above which messages don't even go to spam, but are just deleted.

The primary cause of my provider classifying thes mails as spam is that
DMARC doesn't play nice with mailing lists. The SpamAssassin report from
my provider for one of Toby's messages - the one archived as
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-July/006588.html

• shows as much:

X-Provider-AR: spf=pass dkim=fail arc=fail dmarc=fail.reject
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 15.1
X-Spam-Report: 15.1 hits;
*  0.8 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
*              [Blocked - see
https://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?199.10.31.237]
* -0.0 SPF_PASS              SPF: sender matches SPF record
*  0.2 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED  No valid author signature, adsp_override is
*                            CUSTOM_MED
*  0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE          SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
*  0.0 ARC_SIGNED            Message has a ARC signature
*  0.0 ARC_VALID              Message has a valid ARC signature
*  1.5 X_FREEMAIL_FROM_NO_ABUSE_DEPT Freemail service with dysfunctional
*                            abuse department and high spam occurrence
*  1.5 X_FREEMAIL_RECV_NO_ABUSE_DEPT Freemail service with dysfunctional
*                            abuse department and high spam occurrence
*  0.0 X_AR_DKIM_FAIL        DKIM validation failed
* -0.0 X_AR_SPF_PASS          SPF validation passed
*  0.5 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser
mail provider
*                            [tdp201b(at)yahoo.co.uk]
*  0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail
*                            domains are different
*  0.1 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY      BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME
*  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE          BODY: HTML included in message
* -0.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI    Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
*                            manager
*  10 X_AR_DMARC_FAIL_REJECT DMARC validation failed, policy says reject
*  0.0 FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and
EnvelopeFrom
*                              freemail headers are different
*  0.5 X_SEX_SPAM_01          Message contains one sex-related term

It gets 10 penalty points just from "X_AR_DMARC_FAIL_REJECT". (I have no
idea what the "sex-related term" is.)

I must admit that I'm no DMARC expert, but apparently there are three
ways to deal with this:
- Mess with From headers or use MIME encapsulation:
https://dmarcian.com/mailing-lists-dmarc/ and
https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC?highlight=%28DMARC%29
- Don't alter the Subject field: mail subjects would just be "Novel
strategy-proof election method" instead of "[EM] Novel strategy-proof
election method". Then rely on DKIM authentication:
https://begriffs.com/posts/2018-09-18-dmarc-mailing-list.html
- Use ARC:
https://mxtoolbox.com/dmarc/details/arc/dmarc-authenticated-received-chain
and
https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/docs/arc_sign.html

To me, the ARC approach seems to be the least hacky one.

-km

I don't see most messages from Chris Benham or Kevin Venzke. I think it might be something to do with us all using Yahoo, but you aren't so there might be something else going on there.
Toby
On Tuesday 23 July 2024 at 19:48:02 BST, robert bristow-johnson rbj@audioimagination.com wrote:

The goofy thing is, I have check and I never received any of these posts from Kevin Venzke stepjak@yahoo.fr nor from Toby Pereira tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk (that MO referred to) nor from most other posts that I see now at the archive http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-July/thread.html . 

I checked my spam folder and nothing from [EM] in that.

So there is something wrong with the list server because I am not getting many posts.  Earlier I was seeing just a monologue from MO and sometimes a back-and-forth between MO and MG.  A couple of posts from Rob.  A couple from Kristofer and Closed Limelike Curves.  That's it.

I can see in the archive that there were many posts from people besides those from MO and MG (that I was getting tired of) but almost none of those posts came to my email.

I dunno, has anyone else had this problem of not getting about half of the posts made to the list?  Rob, is there some known thing about the list server that's doing this?  What is the server?  (The only one I have ever heard of is majordomo.)  I wonder if most list recipients are missing posts when they compare their Inbox to the list archive?

Oh, and about the topic at hand, I wasn't in favor of banning anyone (yet, anyway).  Just talking with them and scaling back the number of really low-quality posts which would then increase both the median and average quality of the posts on this list.  After all, there are some giants in the field that are part of this list and, in the past, the list quality was very high.

And to Michael Garman; it's never my intention that you're chased offa the list.  But some of us are rightly suspicious of, dismayed with, and unimpressed with FairVote and the arguments FV (or RankTheVote) put forth to push IRV to the detriment of the core values that RCV is meant to promote.  So please, remain here, continue to advocate for Hare RCV if you want.

But don't expect us to let the falsehoods go without challenge.  You just cannot truthfully say that Hare RCV (or any RCV) will guarantee that the winner gets over 50% of the vote.  That lie, one of which that comes from the RCV organizations, must be refuted every time it is spoken or written.  At one time I saw Rob Richie and FV scale that back and include qualification like "over 50% of the 'active votes'", but even so, the impression they're trying to leave is a false impression.  And that has no excuse.

It would be as if I would claim that Condorcet always guarantees that there is no spoiler.  (But I will claim that if there is a Condorcet winner and the Condorcet winner is elected, there are no spoilers.)

And I know that Michael Ossipoff has been with this list from before the time I joined in 2009 just after the Burlington fiasco.  I think MO knows his shit better than I do.  It's mostly about the high-volume, low-quality thing of recent times where it seemed like his was the only voice we could hear in the room.

robert

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.

Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

On 2024-07-23 23:06, Toby Pereira wrote:

I think that's due to different ISPs having different DMARC policies.

After some web browsing, I found the following explanation:

These tell the receiving mail host what to do if the DMARC check fails.
They're set by DNS. For instance, for Yahoo:

$ dig -t TXT _DMARC.yahoo.co.uk
(...)
;; ANSWER SECTION:
_DMARC.yahoo.co.uk. 1800 IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100;
rua=mailto:d@rua.agari.com; ruf=mailto:d@ruf.agari.com;"

p=reject sets the policy for any mails claiming to be from yahoo.co.uk
to "reject". So the recipient should just delete them if they fail the
DMARC check (as far as I understand). Fortunately for me, my provider
just adds a penalty of 10 instead.

My own provider sets "p=quarantine". If Yahoo follows the policies
literally, that should put my EM posts in your (Toby's) spam folder.

-km

I didn't receive the most recent message from Kevin Venzke that is in
the electorama EM archive (dated Mon. July 22):

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-July/006632.html

Chris B.

On 24/07/2024 4:15 am, robert bristow-johnson wrote: