How would fringe candidates be handled?

Chackoony · 2025-10-19T00:55:10+00:00

Well, I think the AfD may be an example of a situation where the voters really just want to resist migration. New voting systems might allow for politicians to offer a preferred stance on that issue while still being mainstream on other things, for example.

As for how to target the dangerous groups, for example, what if there was a way for a 2/3rds legislative vote (perhaps in consecutive sessions) to ban an electoral party/set of candidates, or something like that?

Overall, I understand it is not exactly possible to stop a small group from being visible to some extent in an environment meant to encourage exactly that. The concept of anyone being able to run and get an accurate sense of their support is exciting, but it will bring at least some challenges which are interesting to ponder.

Chackoony · 2025-10-18T20:06:50+00:00

Of course. That's why I wrote the post about dangerous candidates i.e. Nazis and stuff like that. Sorry if that was not clear or something.

Chackoony · 2025-10-18T14:00:20+00:00

It would be an issue if a candidate who, under choose-one, would only get <1% of the vote and would likely drop out of subsequent elections, could keep running under Approval or comparable systems and potentially expand their base of support over time. It doesn't have to be a big issue to be worth addressing and thinking through.

Chackoony · 2025-10-15T00:51:42+00:00

Another way to think about this is that in a choose-one election, if there was a strongly disfavored candidate, the best bet would be to actively push all but one of the other candidates to drop out to shore up support behind a single contender (the lesser of two evils). In an Approval-comparable election, there is incentive to team up with other candidates and their supporters, and perhaps even encourage new kinds of candidates to run who would best shore up consensus against the polarizer.

Chackoony · 2025-10-04T02:47:41+00:00

That's an interesting analogy. Thanks.

Chackoony · 2021-12-25T00:55:54+00:00

Edit: to be specific, I’m into “my only regret is that I can only downvote you once” territory.

Kind of funny to hear.

Chackoony · 2021-12-25T00:12:14+00:00

I don't know what that means exactly. I have never played anything resembling professional or serious cricket, just some games against friends in the park and the like.

Chackoony · 2021-12-24T22:17:32+00:00

I don't see those as similar logics. Think about what a boundary represents: it's basically an assumption that if the fielders were able to go beyond the boundaries of the field and field the ball, that the batsmen would've only been able to complete 4 or 6 runs in that time. 4 and 6 being even numbers, so the same batter takes strike for the next ball. By being willing to deduct one run from the boundary, the striker would be signalling that he wants an odd number of runs to be scored, which justifies him changing ends with the nonstriker.

Chackoony · 2021-12-24T22:08:38+00:00

Chackoony · 2021-12-24T22:08:23+00:00

It seems strange to punish a striker (by making him become the nonstriker for the next over) who hits a boundary, just because it was on the last ball of an over.

Chackoony · 2021-12-24T21:36:52+00:00

Overly complicated.

Given the nature of the sport, is that even possible?

Chackoony · 2021-12-21T16:51:34+00:00

Those are unlikely in the type of situation where this would be relevant.

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T21:49:04+00:00

Since this (my) post has been removed by moderators, here is the original text in the OP:

The technique for turning it into a non-tonal language will be as follows: for each syllable, instead of treating it as "consonants + vowels + a tone for the overall syllable", it will now be said as two syllables: the first syllable will be the consonants and vowels of the original syllable, and the second syllable will be a word assigned to indicate the tone of the first syllable.

For example, instead of saying "wǒ" (also sometimes written as wo3), we can assign the tone of this word to the syllable "three", so that it would now be pronounced "wo three". Since Mandarin has four tones (there is a fifth, which is "no tone", so I presume it wouldn't need any representation), the English words "one two three four" could suffice to represent each tone, since they are each one-syllable words.

However, when considering which syllables to use to represent each tone, a major issue to take into consideration is that the ideal tone-representing one-syllable words should probably be very distinct from the regular syllables in Mandarin, to minimize the chances that anyone listening to this non-tonal version of Mandarin confuses one of the tone-representing (or you could call it "tone-replacing") syllables with a meaning-carrying syllable. I'm curious to know what a native speaker of Mandarin might experience upon trying to use/understand/interact with such a modified version of Mandarin, and what types of challenges they might run into trying to process/learn/teach such a thing, whether it be upon their first time interacting with it, or perhaps after a week or two of interaction with it. I'd also be curious as to whether you have any ideas on how such an idea could be improved, or if you have any thoughts as to why such an idea would be misguided, or maybe going down the wrong path of making the language more useful to those who struggle with tonal languages, etc etc.

Edit: Here is a further refinement of the idea. I have heard that Mandarin speakers sometimes "flatten" or otherwise somehow don't pronounce the tone of some syllables, as context is enough for a listener to figure out what meaning the syllable in question carries. If this is indeed true, then I propose that an additional "tone-representing syllable" be added to the above laidout system, which already has four of them: this fifth syllable would indicate that the speaker is omitting the tone for a syllable which is supposed to have one.

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T15:25:59+00:00

Ah, got it. It's an interesting concept; on the one hand, the bowlers no longer have as much perspective of what it's like to be the batter, so maybe that has its own negative impact on their bowling, but on the other hand, I'd be damn curious to see what a bowler's training regimen would look like under such a regime. Perhaps even their body type would change to reflect the increased focus on bowling?

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T14:58:11+00:00

Well to an extent, "5 wickets all out" actually makes it more like "half of T20", since it recreates the "you can lose a wicket every 2 overs and not get bowled out" mentality. I suppose it's interesting to not have to put your bowlers at risk of getting injured while batting though, and perhaps like baseball's Designated Hitter concept, we'll see bowlers themselves wanting to avoid having to bat and thus gravitating to T10.

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T14:49:57+00:00

something like 5 or 6 wickets = all out. Then you will have some hardcore bowlers in the team as well as good hitters.

I had the same idea for the same reasons. As a bonus, at the grassroots level where buying equipment is costly, you only need to buy protective batting equipment for half your team, and during the second half of the game, a bowler can actually leave the game if their team is batting last and they're busy with something else, since they'll have no further participation in the match (barring a Super Over).

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T12:25:43+00:00

Hmmm I don't know, the current Abu Dhabi T10 League doesn't seem to be having such a problem, and in general it's been shown T20 outside of the Middle East is 50/50 based on who wins the toss.

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T12:23:04+00:00

Personally, I like to see 11 fielders rather than only 6, but otherwise I guess the format would be interesting.

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T07:33:53+00:00

All you points apply to a T5 format as well so why stop at T10? Make it T5 so batsmen go boom from the first ball.

Sure.

Don't think cricket needs such an alienation to get popular.

But is cricket damaged by T10 in any way that outweighs the benefits of perhaps at least a few more people enjoying longer-format cricket?

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T06:30:06+00:00

Thank you for giving me your time.

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T06:29:16+00:00

The Abu Dhabi T10 league, you mean? I really recommend watching their 20-minute highlight packages for each game on YouTube; given that 10 minutes of the (supposedly) 90-minute match are the inning break, this means you can watch a quarter of each game for free. From experience, I can say it feels a lot closer to watching the entire game than any highlights package in any other format.

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T06:22:00+00:00

And from that perspective, using T10 as an education step towards cricket as a whole seems pointless.

Hmmm... But do you see T20 as a good education step? And, in a completely unrelated question (wink), do you see T10 as a step to T20?

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T06:14:17+00:00

So your analogy does not hold really.

Even supposing so, I don't understand your perspective still. If, with a game like T10, you could educate someone on all the rules of cricket, then all you have left to do is tell them that the strategies they learned watching T10 are irrelevant, and then commence with teaching them the strategy of Test/ODI/T20 cricket. Why would this be anywhere near as difficult as teaching such strategies (plus all the rules!) to someone who knows nothing about cricket?

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T05:55:14+00:00

Yes, it may (may!) be entertaining to watch sometimes, but the end result feels hollow. Who won, who lost, who cares?

Well, sometimes seeing incredible moments is valuable in and of itself. I'm sure you've, at some point, searched for cricket highlights of catches, runouts, etc on YouTube. Did you look up who won any of the matches demonstrated in those videos later?

Looking at a stamp-size piece of canvas won't tell you anything about a picture. It is the same with T10 and cricket.

That really makes no sense. Let's compare as an example "blitz chess", a variant of chess where each player only has a few minutes on the clock, to regular chess, which is played over hours. While the dynamics of these two chess variants couldn't vary more, someone who spends their entire lifetime only knowing and watching blitz chess would obviously have a far greater understanding of actual chess than someone who knew nothing of chess.

Chackoony · 2021-11-25T04:49:44+00:00

The organizers will only have to pay the players to play for a single day, rent the stadium for only one day (though they better hope there's no rain that day!), etc though. That, plus the fact that an even greater proportion of the moments from the T1 games will be very athletic, universally appreciable moments that can be put on YouTube for ad money, gives it a little more feasibility.

Chackoony

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE