Ranking Books - Voting VS Donating

[Salandriagado]

Gallo's communications are much better attested than yours are.

What do you mean?

We have a long history of communications with Gallo's, all of which is in a consistent style that's clearly different to Gallo's own. With yours, we have precisely one message supposedly from him, written in a style fairly similar to yours, with no evidence whatsoever that you didn't write it.

[Xerographica]

I made a donation of $5 dollars...

Wealth of Nations: $5 dollars

[Xerographica]

What do you mean?

We have a long history of communications with Gallo's, all of which is in a consistent style that's clearly different to Gallo's own. With yours, we have precisely one message supposedly from him, written in a style fairly similar to yours, with no evidence whatsoever that you didn't write it.

If you don't believe me then all you have to do is e-mail the professor yourself.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I made a donation of $5 dollars...

Wealth of Nations: $5 dollars

Fucking seriously? Not only do you create a bizarre experiment with an entirely subjective metric, not only do you participate in it yourself, but then, THEN, when others do participate, you throw in more money? This undermines everything. If you're donating $5 now, why didn't you donate $7 in the first place? Has your esteem for the Wealth of Nations more than tripled since yesterday?

Of course not. You're just turning this into a bidding war for your own pet theory. And yet you dare to claim you're trying to conduct an experiment, as if you're actually seeking truth.

[Galloism]

I made a donation of $5 dollars...

Wealth of Nations: $5 dollars

Fucking seriously? Not only do you create a bizarre experiment with an entirely subjective metric, not only do you participate in it yourself, but then, THEN, when others do participate, you throw in more money? This undermines everything. If you're donating $5 now, why didn't you donate $7 in the first place? Has your esteem for the Wealth of Nations more than tripled since yesterday?

Of course not. You're just turning this into a bidding war for your own pet theory. And yet you dare to claim you're trying to conduct an experiment, as if you're actually seeking truth.

Let's be honest. Did you expect anything different?

[Salandriagado]

We have a long history of communications with Gallo's, all of which is in a consistent style that's clearly different to Gallo's own. With yours, we have precisely one message supposedly from him, written in a style fairly similar to yours, with no evidence whatsoever that you didn't write it.

If you don't believe me then all you have to do is e-mail the professor yourself.

Who will naturally refuse to tell me who he has and hasn't been communicating with.

[Xerographica]

If you don't believe me then all you have to do is e-mail the professor yourself.

Who will naturally refuse to tell me who he has and hasn't been communicating with.

Maybe. So just ask him for his thoughts on using voting and donating to rank things.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I didn't. Now pony up to the fact that you're wrong.

If you didn't make it up, then link to the professor's page.

Here you go.

Now pony up and admit you are wrong.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Fucking seriously? Not only do you create a bizarre experiment with an entirely subjective metric, not only do you participate in it yourself, but then, THEN, when others do participate, you throw in more money? This undermines everything. If you're donating $5 now, why didn't you donate $7 in the first place? Has your esteem for the Wealth of Nations more than tripled since yesterday?

Of course not. You're just turning this into a bidding war for your own pet theory. And yet you dare to claim you're trying to conduct an experiment, as if you're actually seeking truth.

Let's be honest. Did you expect anything different?

I...well...but...so blatant and...

Yeah, no. I should have predicted this.

[Galloism]

Let's be honest. Did you expect anything different?

I...well...but...so blatant and...

Yeah, no. I should have predicted this.

You really should have. But you did ask an interesting question.

So, I put it back to you Xero, why did your valuation of Wealth of Nations more than triple in the last two days?

[Kubra]

Getting on Xero's case for this is actually kind of unfair, which is something you won't hear me say twice.
The whole structure of this is that it's a bidding war on ranking. It's arguably even less useful (and that's saying something) if one can't donate multiple times.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I made a second donation of 5 dollars.

I wish to put it all on 50 Shades of Grey again.

[Galloism]

Getting on Xero's case for this is actually kind of unfair, which is something you won't hear me say twice.
The whole structure of this is that it's a bidding war on ranking. It's arguably even less useful (and that's saying something) if one can't donate multiple times.

No, actually, it's not.

Because here's the thing. Xero has argued that his system will reveal preference strength, something that voters will not do, because bidders will bid their valuation. According to Xero, we must reveal our valuations or we're not giving the "truth", and this is detrimental. Yet, it doesn't appear that Xero has bid his valuation, at least not consistently.

Because if his original bid, $2, was his valuation, then he's not bid OVER his valuation and is lying about his valuation of the book now that he's bid $7 - hiding his preference strength. If his valuation really is $7, then his first bid was therefore a lie when he only bid $2 and he was hiding his preference strength.

Alternatively, he might have discovered some nugget of wisdom in Wealth of Nations that has more than tripled his valuation in two days.

[Kubra]

Getting on Xero's case for this is actually kind of unfair, which is something you won't hear me say twice.
The whole structure of this is that it's a bidding war on ranking. It's arguably even less useful (and that's saying something) if one can't donate multiple times.

No, actually, it's not.

Because here's the thing. Xero has argued that his system will reveal preference strength, something that voters will not do, because bidders will bid their valuation. According to Xero, we must reveal our valuations or we're not giving the "truth", and this is detrimental. Yet, it doesn't appear that Xero has bid his valuation, at least not consistently.

Because if his original bid, $2, was his valuation, then he's not bid OVER his valuation and is lying about his valuation of the book now that he's bid $7 - hiding his preference strength. If his valuation really is $7, then his first bid was therefore a lie when he only bid $2 and he was hiding his preference strength.

Alternatively, he might have discovered some nugget of wisdom in Wealth of Nations that has more than tripled his valuation in two days.

The thing is that where it's a ranking system valuation is comparative: I think such and so is better than such and so title, so I must value it higher to keep pace with the valuation of the other title. Prices are dynamic, and the value of something to you is often affected by how others value it. It's allocation the way it's supposed to go.
And besides, being able to donate more means that 50 shades of grey, a landmark work of 21st century metamodernism, is well on its way to the top spot.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, actually, it's not.

Because here's the thing. Xero has argued that his system will reveal preference strength, something that voters will not do, because bidders will bid their valuation. According to Xero, we must reveal our valuations or we're not giving the "truth", and this is detrimental. Yet, it doesn't appear that Xero has bid his valuation, at least not consistently.

Because if his original bid, $2, was his valuation, then he's not bid OVER his valuation and is lying about his valuation of the book now that he's bid $7 - hiding his preference strength. If his valuation really is $7, then his first bid was therefore a lie when he only bid $2 and he was hiding his preference strength.

Alternatively, he might have discovered some nugget of wisdom in Wealth of Nations that has more than tripled his valuation in two days.

The thing is that where it's a ranking system valuation is comparative: I think such and so is better than such and so title, so I must value it higher to keep pace with the valuation of the other title. Prices are dynamic, and the value of something to you is often affected by how others value it. It's allocation the way it's supposed to go.
And besides, being able to donate more means that 50 shades of grey, a landmark work of 21st century metamodernism, is well on its way to the top spot.

Which then proves me right, since one of my criticisms of Xero's hypothesis is that it is merely a glorified system of gambling, which he also has denied.

[Galloism]

No, actually, it's not.

Because here's the thing. Xero has argued that his system will reveal preference strength, something that voters will not do, because bidders will bid their valuation. According to Xero, we must reveal our valuations or we're not giving the "truth", and this is detrimental. Yet, it doesn't appear that Xero has bid his valuation, at least not consistently.

Because if his original bid, $2, was his valuation, then he's not bid OVER his valuation and is lying about his valuation of the book now that he's bid $7 - hiding his preference strength. If his valuation really is $7, then his first bid was therefore a lie when he only bid $2 and he was hiding his preference strength.

Alternatively, he might have discovered some nugget of wisdom in Wealth of Nations that has more than tripled his valuation in two days.

The thing is that where it's a ranking system valuation is comparative: I think such and so is better than such and so title, so I must value it higher to keep pace with the valuation of the other title. Prices are dynamic, and the value of something to you is often affected by how others value it. It's allocation the way it's supposed to go.

Which then means Xero needs to explain why his valuation tripled in two days.

And besides, being able to donate more means that 50 shades of grey, a landmark work of 21st century metamodernism, is well on its way to the top spot.

It's a landmark of something.

[Xerographica]

I made a donation of $5 dollars...

Wealth of Nations: $5 dollars

Fucking seriously? Not only do you create a bizarre experiment with an entirely subjective metric, not only do you participate in it yourself, but then, THEN, when others do participate, you throw in more money? This undermines everything. If you're donating $5 now, why didn't you donate $7 in the first place? Has your esteem for the Wealth of Nations more than tripled since yesterday?

Of course not. You're just turning this into a bidding war for your own pet theory. And yet you dare to claim you're trying to conduct an experiment, as if you're actually seeking truth.

It was always supposed to be a bidding war. I'm not exactly sure why you assumed otherwise. Admittedly, perhaps I never explicitly stated that it's supposed to be a bidding war. But everybody knows that it's a fundraiser. Why in the world would it make sense to limit donations?

Several times I've shared the results from the libertarian party's fundraiser...

$6,327.00 — I’m That Libertarian!
$5,200.00 — Building Bridges, Not Walls
$1,620.00 — Pro Choice on Everything
$1,377.77 — Empowering the Individual
$395.00 — The Power of Principle
$150.00 — Future of Freedom
$135.00 — Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
$105.00 — Rise of the Libertarians
$75.00 — Free Lives Matter
$42.00 — Be Me, Be Free
$17.76 — Make Taxation Theft Again
$15.42 — Taxation is Theft
$15.00 — Jazzed About Liberty
$15.00 — All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
$5.00 — Am I Being Detained!
$5.00 — Liberty Here and Now

It should be self-evident that donors were permitted to make unlimited donations for their preferred convention themes.

Yesterday all it took was $2 dollars to put The Wealth of Nations in first place. Then it dropped to second place when $12 dollars was put on War and Peace. Obviously this didn't bother me enough to make another donation for the Wealth of Nations. It was a different story though when $5 dollars was put on 50 Shades of Grey. Clearly it was worth it for me to donate $5 dollars to put the Wealth of Nations back in second place.

Does this make the experiment unrealistic? The point of the experiment is to determine whether voting or donating is better at ranking things. From my perspective, the experiment would be far less realistic if participants could only make one donation.

[Salandriagado]

No, actually, it's not.

Because here's the thing. Xero has argued that his system will reveal preference strength, something that voters will not do, because bidders will bid their valuation. According to Xero, we must reveal our valuations or we're not giving the "truth", and this is detrimental. Yet, it doesn't appear that Xero has bid his valuation, at least not consistently.

Because if his original bid, $2, was his valuation, then he's not bid OVER his valuation and is lying about his valuation of the book now that he's bid $7 - hiding his preference strength. If his valuation really is $7, then his first bid was therefore a lie when he only bid $2 and he was hiding his preference strength.

Alternatively, he might have discovered some nugget of wisdom in Wealth of Nations that has more than tripled his valuation in two days.

The thing is that where it's a ranking system valuation is comparative: I think such and so is better than such and so title, so I must value it higher to keep pace with the valuation of the other title. Prices are dynamic, and the value of something to you is often affected by how others value it. It's allocation the way it's supposed to go.
And besides, being able to donate more means that 50 shades of grey, a landmark work of 21st century metamodernism, is well on its way to the top spot.

Xero's core claim is that it isn't comparative: in particular, he claims that you should pay some static maximum amount that you are willing to pay in all circumstances, even and especially when cheaper options are available.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Fucking seriously? Not only do you create a bizarre experiment with an entirely subjective metric, not only do you participate in it yourself, but then, THEN, when others do participate, you throw in more money? This undermines everything. If you're donating $5 now, why didn't you donate $7 in the first place? Has your esteem for the Wealth of Nations more than tripled since yesterday?

Of course not. You're just turning this into a bidding war for your own pet theory. And yet you dare to claim you're trying to conduct an experiment, as if you're actually seeking truth.

It was always supposed to be a bidding war. I'm not exactly sure why you assumed otherwise. Admittedly, perhaps I never explicitly stated that it's supposed to be a bidding war. But everybody knows that it's a fundraiser. Why in the world would it make sense to limit donations?

Several times I've shared the results from the libertarian party's fundraiser...

$6,327.00 — I’m That Libertarian!
$5,200.00 — Building Bridges, Not Walls
$1,620.00 — Pro Choice on Everything
$1,377.77 — Empowering the Individual
$395.00 — The Power of Principle
$150.00 — Future of Freedom
$135.00 — Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
$105.00 — Rise of the Libertarians
$75.00 — Free Lives Matter
$42.00 — Be Me, Be Free
$17.76 — Make Taxation Theft Again
$15.42 — Taxation is Theft
$15.00 — Jazzed About Liberty
$15.00 — All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
$5.00 — Am I Being Detained!
$5.00 — Liberty Here and Now

It should be self-evident that donors were permitted to make unlimited donations for their preferred convention themes.

Yesterday all it took was $2 dollars to put The Wealth of Nations in first place. Then it dropped to second place when $12 dollars was put on War and Peace. Obviously this didn't bother me enough to make another donation for the Wealth of Nations. It was a different story though when $5 dollars was put on 50 Shades of Grey. Clearly it was worth it for me to donate $5 dollars to put the Wealth of Nations back in second place.

Does this make the experiment unrealistic? The point of the experiment is to determine whether voting or donating is better at ranking things. From my perspective, the experiment would be far less realistic if participants could only make one donation.

So your entire system is a glorified gambling scheme and therefore I was right when I addressed it as such?

Just want to make sure that you are finally conceding to my point.

[Salandriagado]

Fucking seriously? Not only do you create a bizarre experiment with an entirely subjective metric, not only do you participate in it yourself, but then, THEN, when others do participate, you throw in more money? This undermines everything. If you're donating $5 now, why didn't you donate $7 in the first place? Has your esteem for the Wealth of Nations more than tripled since yesterday?

Of course not. You're just turning this into a bidding war for your own pet theory. And yet you dare to claim you're trying to conduct an experiment, as if you're actually seeking truth.

It was always supposed to be a bidding war. I'm not exactly sure why you assumed otherwise. Admittedly, perhaps I never explicitly stated that it's supposed to be a bidding war. But everybody knows that it's a fundraiser. Why in the world would it make sense to limit donations?

Several times I've shared the results from the libertarian party's fundraiser...

$6,327.00 — I’m That Libertarian!
$5,200.00 — Building Bridges, Not Walls
$1,620.00 — Pro Choice on Everything
$1,377.77 — Empowering the Individual
$395.00 — The Power of Principle
$150.00 — Future of Freedom
$135.00 — Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
$105.00 — Rise of the Libertarians
$75.00 — Free Lives Matter
$42.00 — Be Me, Be Free
$17.76 — Make Taxation Theft Again
$15.42 — Taxation is Theft
$15.00 — Jazzed About Liberty
$15.00 — All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
$5.00 — Am I Being Detained!
$5.00 — Liberty Here and Now

It should be self-evident that donors were permitted to make unlimited donations for their preferred convention themes.

Yesterday all it took was $2 dollars to put The Wealth of Nations in first place. Then it dropped to second place when $12 dollars was put on War and Peace. Obviously this didn't bother me enough to make another donation for the Wealth of Nations. It was a different story though when $5 dollars was put on 50 Shades of Grey. Clearly it was worth it for me to donate $5 dollars to put the Wealth of Nations back in second place.

Does this make the experiment unrealistic? The point of the experiment is to determine whether voting or donating is better at ranking things. From my perspective, the experiment would be far less realistic if participants could only make one donation.

Ah, so your system doesn't reveal what you said it would reveal. You claimed that your system would reveal people's "true valuations" of things. By your own admission, it doesn't: it reveals that someone was willing to pay slightly more than the most someone else was willing to pay, but gives zero information about how much more than that they would be willing to pay.

[Xerographica]

I made a second donation of 5 dollars.

I wish to put it all on 50 Shades of Grey again.

If you made a second donation, then why doesn't it show it on your Nation page?

[Kubra]

The thing is that where it's a ranking system valuation is comparative: I think such and so is better than such and so title, so I must value it higher to keep pace with the valuation of the other title. Prices are dynamic, and the value of something to you is often affected by how others value it. It's allocation the way it's supposed to go.
And besides, being able to donate more means that 50 shades of grey, a landmark work of 21st century metamodernism, is well on its way to the top spot.

Which then proves me right, since one of my criticisms of Xero's hypothesis is that it is merely a glorified system of gambling, which he also has denied.

Well, depends how you define it. By that measure any auction is a form of gambling. Not that I would disagree with that assertion, of course.

The thing is that where it's a ranking system valuation is comparative: I think such and so is better than such and so title, so I must value it higher to keep pace with the valuation of the other title. Prices are dynamic, and the value of something to you is often affected by how others value it. It's allocation the way it's supposed to go.

Which then means Xero needs to explain why his valuation tripled in two days.

And besides, being able to donate more means that 50 shades of grey, a landmark work of 21st century metamodernism, is well on its way to the top spot.

It's a landmark of something.

Simple: because the valuation of other options went up. You're not paying for the valuation of a work, but for its comparative ranking: if you value the top spot, you gotta put your money down for it a few times.

great for cucumber sales mirite or mirite

The thing is that where it's a ranking system valuation is comparative: I think such and so is better than such and so title, so I must value it higher to keep pace with the valuation of the other title. Prices are dynamic, and the value of something to you is often affected by how others value it. It's allocation the way it's supposed to go.
And besides, being able to donate more means that 50 shades of grey, a landmark work of 21st century metamodernism, is well on its way to the top spot.

Xero's core claim is that it isn't comparative: in particular, he claims that you should pay some static maximum amount that you are willing to pay in all circumstances, even and especially when cheaper options are available.

Well I'm doing him a favour then, aren't I? It seems I'm the top economist now, boyo's.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It was always supposed to be a bidding war. I'm not exactly sure why you assumed otherwise. Admittedly, perhaps I never explicitly stated that it's supposed to be a bidding war. But everybody knows that it's a fundraiser. Why in the world would it make sense to limit donations?

Several times I've shared the results from the libertarian party's fundraiser...

$6,327.00 — I’m That Libertarian!
$5,200.00 — Building Bridges, Not Walls
$1,620.00 — Pro Choice on Everything
$1,377.77 — Empowering the Individual
$395.00 — The Power of Principle
$150.00 — Future of Freedom
$135.00 — Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
$105.00 — Rise of the Libertarians
$75.00 — Free Lives Matter
$42.00 — Be Me, Be Free
$17.76 — Make Taxation Theft Again
$15.42 — Taxation is Theft
$15.00 — Jazzed About Liberty
$15.00 — All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
$5.00 — Am I Being Detained!
$5.00 — Liberty Here and Now

It should be self-evident that donors were permitted to make unlimited donations for their preferred convention themes.

Yesterday all it took was $2 dollars to put The Wealth of Nations in first place. Then it dropped to second place when $12 dollars was put on War and Peace. Obviously this didn't bother me enough to make another donation for the Wealth of Nations. It was a different story though when $5 dollars was put on 50 Shades of Grey. Clearly it was worth it for me to donate $5 dollars to put the Wealth of Nations back in second place.

Does this make the experiment unrealistic? The point of the experiment is to determine whether voting or donating is better at ranking things. From my perspective, the experiment would be far less realistic if participants could only make one donation.

Ah, so your system doesn't reveal what you said it would reveal. You claimed that your system would reveal people's "true valuations" of things. By your own admission, it doesn't: it reveals that someone was willing to pay slightly more than the most someone else was willing to pay, but gives zero information about how much more than that they would be willing to pay.

It's a false valuation, and here's the catch: I can keep donating 5 dollar amounts all day to NS. I have enough money to donate to NS and leave Xero biting dust, not only that but the only reason I am doing it is because I know it is the least favorite book of Xero, so I'm just doing it just because I can and I have the money to do it, not because I truly value 50 shades of grey more than its retail value.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I made a second donation of 5 dollars.

I wish to put it all on 50 Shades of Grey again.

If you made a second donation, then why doesn't it show it on your Nation page?

Because I bought telegram stamps.

[Kubra]

Ah, so your system doesn't reveal what you said it would reveal. You claimed that your system would reveal people's "true valuations" of things. By your own admission, it doesn't: it reveals that someone was willing to pay slightly more than the most someone else was willing to pay, but gives zero information about how much more than that they would be willing to pay.

It's a false valuation, and here's the catch: I can keep donating 5 dollar amounts all day to NS. I have enough money to donate to NS and leave Xero biting dust, not only that but the only reason I am doing it is because I know it is the least favorite book of Xero, so I'm just doing it just because I can and I have the money to do it, not because I truly value 50 shades of grey more than its retail value.

heyoo page one called it
the deciding votes will be those made just to spite xero