IntenseDebate - tjmadsen

13 years ago @ North Park Street - Suppression of free sp... · 0 replies · +2 points

derrr

13 years ago @ North Park Street - Suppression of free sp... · 2 replies · +1 points

Yeah, it would be awful to see seg fees used to campaign for something on an ASM ballot..... right Kurt?

13 years ago @ North Park Street - Epic Column from Sam C... · 0 replies · +1 points

First time I've seen the actual literature. That's pretty bad...

13 years ago @ North Park Street - Guilt by association a... · 2 replies · +1 points

My point was that while "guilt by association" is an obvious fallacy, recognizing patterns and investigating motives is not stupid... and shouldn't be treated as such.

13 years ago @ North Park Street - Guilt by association a... · 2 replies · +1 points

"Things that make ya go hmmmm…..????"

Sparking curiosity =/= guilt by association

It is not a illogical to question the motives or some because of the motives of others. It IS illogical to disagree with unknown motives of some because of known motives of others.

13 years ago @ North Park Street - The Problems With Kyle... · 0 replies · +1 points

Wrong about what, Mr. No? That it demonstrates where is priorities lie? I don't think so...

Making a statement about his priorities does not preclude any opinions about how much he knows about the capabilities of an alderman or how detailed his policy platform is.

13 years ago @ North Park Street - The Problems With Kyle... · 3 replies · +1 points

Good analysis.. the only thing I would say is to the "Who opposes funding the Rape Crisis Center?" question:

It's obviously unlikely that any candidate would oppose funding for a rape crisis center, but the fact that he distinctly pronounces his support for "full funding" does demonstrate where is priorities lie (whether you agree or not).

13 years ago @ North Park Street - I Will Vote, Same Old ... · 2 replies · 0 points

Kurt... get real here:

"This group has no name because we aren’t a voting block but we share a slogan which is symbolic of our ideological similarities and the basic idea that we want to see the sharing of governance."

Is this not the exact strategy Brandon, Adam, Matt B, etc. took in the last election? They certainly worked together, and held ideological similarities... but "did not want to be named" and "were not a voting block". Generally that group voted together... but it wasn't because they were "a voting block", it was because they held similar ideology.

There is obviously not a problem with a group candidates voting the same way the majority of the time if it's because they hold similar ideology. I would argue this is the reason MPOWER, FACES, etc. vote the same way the majority of the time - not because of some slate caucus whip.

13 years ago @ North Park Street - The Flaws of Nate Silv... · 2 replies · +1 points

Okay, Kurt... I understand the concept of a single elimination tournament.

That explanation is significantly different than, "The primary rational for seeding and setting up the bracket the way that it is done is so that 1 seeds have the easiest path to advance."
Even the wiki article you cite suggests other methods of seeding & re-seeding that would make it both "easier" for the #1 seed AND easier for the #8 seed.

The other aspect that impacts his data is that typically a bubble team from a major conference (Michigan, Illinois, etc) will get a 8 or 9 seed, whereas a better team from a smaller conference might get a seed >9. This could help explain the data Nate Silver presents.

13 years ago @ North Park Street - The Flaws of Nate Silv... · 3 replies · +1 points

"The primary rational for seeding and setting up the bracket the way that it is done is so that 1 seeds have the easiest path to advance."

Says who?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with tjmadsen

People I'm following

tjmadsen