Re: Number of options

Antonio Terceiro dijo [Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 07:41:26AM -0300]:
>[thanks to Kurt for keeping up with this]

Thanks indeed!

>On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 08:04:21AM +0800, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> We currently have 7 options on the website and NoTA, so 8 on the
>> ballot. There are 2 other recent options with some seconds, possibly
>> creating 10 options.
>
>This is ridiculous, and means that even people who actually agree are
>talking past each other. There are only 2 options: we either a) ban
>LLM-assisted contributions completely, or b) tolerate LLM-assisted
>contributions under a set of constraints.

Seconded.

>I understand that Condorcet voting is supposed to be robust in the face
>of multiple options, but I cannot wrap my mind around having 10
>different options for this issue, because that's a fantasy, product of
>our individualist decision-making method. "Oh look, this is mostly what
>I think, but is missing a few bits here and there. I will make my own
>then".
>
>We are in the eye of the tornado and won't be able or redefine our
>process here and now, so I don't expect to influence the current vote.
>But we would need a process by which we can identify clear, distinct
>directions for votes, and have the texts to be voted on built
>collectively, to avoid this insanity.

Fully seconded. Thanks for bringing this up, Terceiro! Sadly I cannot
right now sign my mail and give poor, dear Kurt more work trying to
work out whether your text is a valid option for the vote¹, so I'll
just joke at the possibility. And hope this will be over soon, as it's
becoming too much, and too self-entangled.

¹ https://gwolf.org/2026/08/file-recovery-in-process.html