The Future of Vote Assistance Software
JimC104544
time to rethink and clarify the position of the Powers That Be regarding
vote assistance software.
It is INCREDIBLY easy to do...ten minutes of programming at the most. A
stealthy and nearly undetectable version could be written in an additional
ten minutes. With more and more BBSs joining the Net, such programs will
be seen much more often. Add-ons for Windows based programs accessing the
Net are also easy to do.
Let's stop avoiding the issue and discuss it reasonably. Regardless of the
decision, it should be posted CLEARLY in the guidelines so as to avoid
future misunderstandings.
The following position is my opionion only and in favor of such software
with certain qualifications. Please read my opinion and respond without
napalm.
Regarding comp.bbs.powerbbs, I *did* read opposing posts with an open
mind. Many of the posts had valid reasoning based on invalid information.
Very few people who had the facts straight were against us.
With that in mind, I firmly believe that automated voting programs should
be allowed. They should take a similar approach as our program by allowing
the caller to opt out of voting with one keystroke. The only difference
being that the caller should be able to read the CFV.
I propose that a menu option for a vote assistance program should be
permitted, be it on newsreader software, login scripts, or BBSs. The voter
would have to manually start the vote process. A brief synopsis of the CFV
should be shown in the introduction. A menu option to see the entire CFV
should be available. The caller should have the option of voting
Yes/No/Abstain as well as exiting the program.
Such a program would educate people, increase voting, and result in less
invalid votes. These goals are to the benefit of Usenet as a whole. I
can't see where the above described program in effect or nature is any
different from a threaded newsreader, something which is not easily done
on a BBS, but prevalent throughout the Net.
I think that on a BBS especially this program would be very helpful. We
are growing in numbers and our special needs should be factored in to the
overall scheme of things. Note that I say factored. I ask not for special
treatment but only for consideration. Voting is incredibly easy for some
and difficult for others. In the interests of accurate polling, the needs
of all potential voters should be considered.
Albert Crosby
>After all of the discussions regarding comp.bbs.powerbbs, I think it is
>time to rethink and clarify the position of the Powers That Be regarding
>vote assistance software.
I will agree that it is time for the cabal to issue a ruling. :-)
>With that in mind, I firmly believe that automated voting programs should
>be allowed. They should take a similar approach as our program by allowing
>the caller to opt out of voting with one keystroke. The only difference
>being that the caller should be able to read the CFV.
Ummm. No. I would prefer not to be innundated with lots of "Gee, there's a
vote on group X. Here's a summary of what it is about. Would you like to
vote on it now?" messages.
Such things should not be part of a login script that is setup by a system
administrator.
>I propose that a menu option for a vote assistance program should be
>permitted, be it on newsreader software, login scripts, or BBSs. The voter
>would have to manually start the vote process. A brief synopsis of the CFV
>should be shown in the introduction. A menu option to see the entire CFV
>should be available. The caller should have the option of voting
>Yes/No/Abstain as well as exiting the program.
I'd vastly prefer stating that *IF* such a mechanism is allowed, it should
not be presented to system users by default. Having a menu item in a BBS
menu is quite different than presenting it to every user upon login.
On a Unix system, our hypothetical user could set up a script that scanned
n.a.n and presented him with a list of groups up for vote when he logs in to
a system. As a user initiated task, I have no problem with it. As a system
administrator initiated task, I think it would be problematic. The issue is
not who wrote it - it's who made it the default for the user. I'd have no
objection to a BBS variable that said "Automatically present Calls For Votes
for Usenet newsgroups? (Y/N) [N]" with the default value being NO.
>Such a program would educate people, increase voting, and result in less
>invalid votes. These goals are to the benefit of Usenet as a whole. I
>can't see where the above described program in effect or nature is any
>different from a threaded newsreader, something which is not easily done
>on a BBS, but prevalent throughout the Net.
Remember, the purpose of Usenet votes, though. Usenet is not, never has
been, and probably never will be a democracy. Probably the biggest flaw
with the current newsgroup creation process is this democratic notion that
it seems to instill in some readers.
It is an interest survey to help system administrators determine whether or
not it is worth their time, effort, and diskspace to propogate a newsgroup.
The decision, in the end, is up to the system administrators.
To be explicit, it would be perfectly OK for 50 sites to start carrying
comp.bbs.powerbbs right now. It would be fine. It's their decision and
their diskspace. Admittedly, it would be on the list of unofficial groups.
If users asked for it, slowly that number would grow.
Similarly, if comp.bbs.powerbbs had a completely succesfull vote with no
contest, and won hands down, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with
200 sites choosing NOT to carry the group. Once again, it's their decision
and their diskspace. And if some of those sites happened to be sitting on
propagation bottlenecks, such as uunet or netcom, the group might suffer
propagation wise from the active decision of a small handful of newsadmins
not to carry or propagate the group. But there is no way to *force* a
newsadmin to carry a group.
The BBS world has a direct analog in "Echo Groups". Any BBS operator can
set up an "Echo Group" and offer it for others to pick up. Some do and some
don't. Sometimes, you can be in Springfiled, MO and pick up an Echo Group
that originated in LA for a local call because lots of other sysops have
chosen to carry the group. Other times, if you have users who want an Echo
Group that is local to Toronto, you as a Sysop would have to make a long
distance call to Canada to pick up the group.
The "newsgroup creation process" is just Usenet's method of determining if
there is sufficient interest in setting up a global group ("echo"), and
advising news admins ("sysops") that it is available and that their users
are likely to be interested.
>I think that on a BBS especially this program would be very helpful. We
>are growing in numbers and our special needs should be factored in to the
>overall scheme of things. Note that I say factored. I ask not for special
>treatment but only for consideration. Voting is incredibly easy for some
>and difficult for others. In the interests of accurate polling, the needs
>of all potential voters should be considered.
Just as long as we all remember the inequality:
Usenet \== Internet \== FidoNet \== Compuserve \== AltNet \== "Bulletin
Boards" \== Democracy
BBS's are just as much a part of Usenet as Internet hosts. Usenet news has
always had the non-directly connected user in mind. In fact, that's who it
was designed for. It's a "store and forward" across intermittent links kind
of operation all the way through.
Albert
--
Albert Crosby | Microcomputer & Network Support | IBM Certified
acr...@comp.uark.edu | University of Arkansas | OS/2 Engineer &
1 501 575 4452 | College of Agriculture And | Lan Server
=======Team OS/2=======| Home Economics | Administrator*
J.D. Falk
would appreciate being able to do it with fewer keystrokes, I'd rather
not have to sift through a whole comp.sys.foobar reorganization when I
don't use foobar systems, don't care about foobar systems, and really
couldn't give a damn about other people discussing foobar systems.
Still, if such a thing were to be brought to the BBS world, where
would I get mine? I'm serious, here -- this system uses UNIX, and I
don't plan on downgrading to a fully menued system just to make voting
easier.
Also -- when I had time to be active in the BBS community, I was
known by a few different names on the alias boards. How are the
real-name guidelines going to be enforced with an autovote system?
I am not saying this is a horrible idea. I'm not totally sure I
like it, but it will come eventually, and I'd like to see it done
correctly from the start.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
: "Information's pretty thin stuff : J.D. Falk
: unless mixed with experience." : jdf...@cais.com
: -Clarance Day :
````````````````````````````````````
Bram Cohen
JimC104544 <jimc1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>[...] I firmly believe that automated voting programs should
>be allowed.
There's really no way that they could be banned, and many people either
already have or soon will write voting programs for their own personal use.
>They should take a similar approach as our program by allowing
>the caller to opt out of voting with one keystroke. The only difference
>being that the caller should be able to read the CFV.
Prompted votes will probably never be allowed, but it is perfectly ethical
to make it very easy for people to vote.
>I propose that a menu option for a vote assistance program should be
>permitted,
Agreed.
>The voter would have to manually start the vote process. A brief synopsis
>of the CFV should be shown in the introduction. A menu option to see the
>entire CFV should be available. The caller should have the option of voting
>Yes/No/Abstain as well as exiting the program.
Also, no false/misleading statements can be given in the introduction.
Any voting software which fell within these guidelines would probably
be permitted without much arguement.
I think that the same thing could be done with Web Pages as well, and the
same guidelines would apply there.
John Stanley
> Still, if such a thing were to be brought to the BBS world, where
>would I get mine? I'm serious, here -- this system uses UNIX, and I
>don't plan on downgrading to a fully menued system just to make voting
>easier.
It isn't hard to write something to assist voting, especially for a UNIX
system. That is, perhaps, part of my case regarding the PowerBBS vote.
It ain't that hard to do anywhere.
> Also -- when I had time to be active in the BBS community, I was
>known by a few different names on the alias boards. How are the
>real-name guidelines going to be enforced with an autovote system?
What "real-name guidelines"? Do you mean the unwritten one which says
you must present a real name with each vote?
No differently than the same guideline is "enforced" on people who have
accounts on different systems now.
David Seal
>With that in mind, I firmly believe that automated voting programs should
>be allowed. They should take a similar approach as our program by allowing
>the caller to opt out of voting with one keystroke. The only difference
>being that the caller should be able to read the CFV.
Minor point: reading what follows, this isn't the only difference.
Having the voter start the process manually is another one, and IMHO a
good one.
>I propose that a menu option for a vote assistance program should be
>permitted, be it on newsreader software, login scripts, or BBSs. The voter
>would have to manually start the vote process. A brief synopsis of the CFV
>should be shown in the introduction. A menu option to see the entire CFV
>should be available. The caller should have the option of voting
>Yes/No/Abstain as well as exiting the program.
This is somewhat dangerous as it stands, but could easily be
corrected.
The potential problem is the "brief synopsis". Quite apart from the
question of whether it actually is a fair synopsis, it would be
fertile ground for arguments after the vote about whether voters had
been presented with and influenced by a biased synopsis. (And when it
comes to a *really* controversial vote like soc.culture.macedonia or
soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya (no spelling flames, please :-), it's a
fair bet that any synopsis will be regarded as biased by some people.
I believe the solution would have to be to include a synopsis as the
first paragraph of any CFV, and to require vote assistance programs to
use that synopsis only.
I'd also be in favour of reminding people that it is a good idea to
read the entire CFV before they vote if they attempt to vote without
reading it. (There's even a case to be made for *requiring* the CFV to
be read, but that's probably going a bit too far...)
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
Mathias Koerber
| With that in mind, I firmly believe that automated voting programs should
| be allowed. They should take a similar approach as our program by allowing
| the caller to opt out of voting with one keystroke. The only difference
| being that the caller should be able to read the CFV.
I totally disagree. The PowerBBS people claim that their program was to
help the users in voting. I claim that the problem cannot be to make
voting a no-brainer, but that the only thing to be made easier is getting
the vote out correfctly. But taking the effort out of making the decision
to vote, and which way to vote is absolutely against the guidelines.
The "one keystroke to opt out" thing is wrong. What should happen is
a) introductory screen saying
"There is a vote on. Please see menu V)oting"
b) under that menu, there should be
"Official Documents: The RFDs and the CFVs, voting guidelines"
"The Discussion: all articles from the discussion for
users to read up"
"Opinions: Other people's stand on the CFV, like
local sysadmins asling you to vote, their
reasoning etc"
"Vote here: Program to compose message"
| I propose that a menu option for a vote assistance program should be
| permitted, be it on newsreader software, login scripts, or BBSs. The voter
| would have to manually start the vote process. A brief synopsis of the CFV
| should be shown in the introduction. A menu option to see the entire CFV
| should be available. The caller should have the option of voting
| Yes/No/Abstain as well as exiting the program.
This is better, as the voter will have to make a decision to go and vote,
as opposed to drop out of a process already started. But I'm against the
brief synopsis of the CFV. Just a text saying:
Please read the CFV and other opinions before making up your
mind.
A synopsis could be slanted. If the full CFV is present, there should be
no substitute. All other opinions (like the local sysops exhorting to vote
yes) must be clearly marked as such. Also, a local discussion forum should
be available, if USENET access is not feasible.
| Such a program would educate people, increase voting, and result in less
| invalid votes. These goals are to the benefit of Usenet as a whole. I
| can't see where the above described program in effect or nature is any
| different from a threaded newsreader, something which is not easily done
| on a BBS, but prevalent throughout the Net.
| I think that on a BBS especially this program would be very helpful. We
| are growing in numbers and our special needs should be factored in to the
| overall scheme of things. Note that I say factored. I ask not for special
| treatment but only for consideration. Voting is incredibly easy for some
| and difficult for others. In the interests of accurate polling, the needs
| of all potential voters should be considered.
Actually, I don't understand what you have about the "threaded newsreader"
you keep talking about. All that is normally needed to vote is a newsreader
that can mail a response to the author inclusing the CFV, which can then be
trimmed down to just the lines needed for voting. Nothing requiring
threads in that.
What threading is good at is it allows the people to better follow the
discussion, but your program totally skipped that part, so there was
nothing made easier for them..
--
Mathias Koerber Tel: +65 / 778 00 66 x 29
SW International Systems Pte Ltd Fax: +65 / 777 94 01
14 Science Park Drive #04-01 The Maxwell e-mail: Mathias...@swi.com.sg
S'pore 0511 <A HREF=http://www.swi.com.sg/public/personal/mk.html>MK</A>
May your Tongue stick to the Roof of your Mouth
with the Force of a Thousand Caramels - ??