web-tv users should have the right to vote
myron liberman
In the recent REC. COLLECTING .STAMPS,
I found it impossible to vote. That is because we dont have a cut, paste
or edit ability.
With the amount of WEB-TVers on the internet, perhaps some of the rules
might be changed in order allow us to vote.
Mike the voteless
David Bostwick
In article <6gvqn7$4i1$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, miket...@webtv.net
says...
Did you ask the votetaker for help? I've had ballots from WebTV users before,
and they were counted in the tally. It's not as simple as using a
"real" newsreader, but it can be done. How did you get this post here? If
you can post, I don't see why you can't vote.
Perhaps you could also talk to WebTV to see if they can solve the problem. It
seems rather dumb (on their part) not to have the ability to edit messages
properly. If enough customers want a change, WebTV might make it.
Neil Crellin
da...@frackit.com (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
> In<6gvqn7$4i1$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, miket...@webtv.net (myron
> liberman) wrote:
> |In the recent REC. COLLECTING .STAMPS,
> |I found it impossible to vote. That is because we dont have a cut, paste
> |or edit ability.
> |With the amount of WEB-TVers on the internet, perhaps some of the rules
> |might be changed in order allow us to vote.
> |Mike the voteless
>
> You already have the right to vote. Whether or not you have the _means_ to
> vote is a funtion of how you choose to access Usenet.
>
> If you have a problem using your WebTV interface with Usenet then talk to
> WebTV about it. The rules will not change to make your chosen interface
> work.
>
> --
> Dave Ratcliffe
> da...@frackit.com
It is possible to type in the necessary components of a ballot by
hand, and WebTV users are certainly capable of composing a completely
fresh message from scratch. My impression of this complaint is simply
that it's slightly more inconvenient to vote from WebTV, but not
impossible. Now the same could be said of when I log in to an emacs
session inside a screen session over ssh via radio modem with my
palmpilot. And my attitude to that is the same: "Doctor, it hurts when
I do this". "Well, don't do that.". To respond to the subject line,
web-tv users certainly should have the right to vote. Currently, they
do, so I think that's pretty much it for that argument. <subliminal>Hitler.
</subliminal>
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Neil Crellin
eas...@psu.edu (Eric Sansoni) writes:
> In article <3538ef61....@news.microserve.net>, da...@frackit.com (Dave Ratcliffe) wrote:
> >
> >If you have a problem using your WebTV interface with Usenet then talk to
> >WebTV about it. The rules will not change to make your chosen interface
> >work.
>
> your old systems become, you will never change or progress them in any way?
> You ought to work for the US government. *Convenience* of exercising that
> right is *certainly* a relevant issue. It's not the same issue as the right
> to vote, but it's not something you can just blow off either. If there was
> no voting booth for congressional elections within 200 miles of you, don't
> you think the people and the government would do something about it? Do you
> think they should? If you can make it *easier* for people to exercise their
> rights and privileges, you damn well better do your best to do it, instead
> of preaching the status quo. Otherwise what good are you to anybody?
The poor WebTV user you liken to a 200-mile-poolbooth-distant
congressional voter can likely go to his public library and get better
internet access from which to submit a vote, and can already (albeit with
greater difficulty) submit a vote from their WebTV account. I submit
to you that change in the process is simply not necessary in this
case, and in fact Dave has correctly identified both the cause and the
most likely to be productive avenue of obtaining suitable redress.
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Russ Allbery
Ru Igarashi <r...@skatter.usask.ca> writes:
> But the "official ballot" ruling is one of the means of trying to get
> some level of integrity in the voting system (eg. authenticity,
> anti-stuffing).
It's also a means by which one assures that the votes actually are clear.
You cannot possibly misinterpret a filled-in ballot. If you're running a
vote on a rec.pets.dogs.* reorg and someone sends mail to the voting
address saying "I want to read posts about dogs," what's that supposed to
mean?
Votetakers shouldn't have to disambiguate votes or even deal with the
overhead of having to explain to these people what's exactly at issue and
what they have to say. Particularly since this can take five or six
exchanges at least. And there are a *lot* of these people.
Real e-mail software has the ability to include quoted text.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Eric Sansoni
In article <3538ef61....@news.microserve.net>, da...@frackit.com (Dave Ratcliffe) wrote:
>
>If you have a problem using your WebTV interface with Usenet then talk to
>WebTV about it. The rules will not change to make your chosen interface
>work.
Gee, what a response. Only in a bureaucracy. So no matter how irrelevant
your old systems become, you will never change or progress them in any way?
You ought to work for the US government. *Convenience* of exercising that
right is *certainly* a relevant issue. It's not the same issue as the right
to vote, but it's not something you can just blow off either. If there was
no voting booth for congressional elections within 200 miles of you, don't
you think the people and the government would do something about it? Do you
think they should? If you can make it *easier* for people to exercise their
rights and privileges, you damn well better do your best to do it, instead
of preaching the status quo. Otherwise what good are you to anybody?
-Eric S.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
-Albert Einstein
POTF2 and 12" Collector's Guide: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/3177/
Ru Igarashi
myron liberman (miket...@webtv.net) wrote:
>In the recent REC. COLLECTING .STAMPS,
>I found it impossible to vote. That is because we dont have a cut, paste
>or edit ability.
>With the amount of WEB-TVers on the internet, perhaps some of the rules
>might be changed in order allow us to vote.
>Mike the voteless
What I don't understand is "just what kind of changes are you hoping
for?" If you can't cut, paste, or edit, how do you expect to get
a vote in at all? I suppose if you sent an e-mail to the vote taker
in your own wording, that would be one of the means. But the "official
ballot" ruling is one of the means of trying to get some level of
integrity in the voting system (eg. authenticity, anti-stuffing).
So having rejected that as a means of change, I really can't see
anything that would help.
However, I can't believe that WebTV is so primitive that you can
only write material without editing, or that there is no "e-mail
reply to usenet posting" feature. Check your documentation. It
is hard to believe WebTV is so primitive in this sense that it
pre-dates usenet. Geez, even MUDs have line editors for their
bulletin boards. If such is the case, then I have to agree with
the sentiment of some others: ask WebTV to upgrade.
ru
Cipher
In article <6h13uf$eu4$1...@tribune.usask.ca> Ru Igarashi,
r...@skatter.usask.ca writes:
>However, I can't believe that WebTV is so primitive that you can
>only write material without editing, or that there is no "e-mail
>reply to usenet posting" feature.
I have a friend with WebTV who can snag .jpgs from web sites or get them
via mail, and manage to upload them to his Geo site. He seems rather
adept at copying and pasting stupid jokes he receives and mailing them to
me.
I like my friend, but he's slightly to left on the bell curve. Now if he
can do all this, and he found out how using Alta Vista, I think the
average user could manage a vote.
News:WebTV.Users
Cipher
Visit one of my Mac help sites at
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/4404/
http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/
http://www.erols.com/cipher1138/
PGP Public Key available at my website
Ginger Glaser
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:29:24 GMT, jge...@nbii.com (Joe George) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:09:43 -0600, miket...@webtv.net (myron
>liberman) wrote:
>
>>In the recent REC. COLLECTING .STAMPS,
>>I found it impossible to vote. That is because we dont have a cut, paste
>>or edit ability.
>>With the amount of WEB-TVers on the internet, perhaps some of the rules
>>might be changed in order allow us to vote.
>>Mike the voteless
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>I'm sorry if this seems a bit strong, but there's something you say
>that I take rather great offense to.
>
>WEBTV USERS HAVE THE *RIGHT* TO VOTE, NOBODY TOOK IT AWAY FROM YOU!
>
[snip]
Um, this may be a dumb question, but you can access the Web with Web
tv right? So could you get a free email account from say yahoo.com and
then use their email interface to edit the ballot and vote? All you
would have to do then is email the votetaker and ask him/her to send a
ballot to your yahoo account.
Ginger
Neil Crellin
ggl...@minn.net (Ginger Glaser) writes:
> Um, this may be a dumb question, but you can access the Web with Web
> tv right? So could you get a free email account from say yahoo.com and
> then use their email interface to edit the ballot and vote? All you
> would have to do then is email the votetaker and ask him/her to send a
> ballot to your yahoo account.
Ginger, I believe the claim was that cutting and pasting wasn't
possible from WebTV. Whether that's inherent to their mail/news
software or endemic to their entire interface might make your question
moot.
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Neil Crellin
ggl...@minn.net (Ginger Glaser) writes:
> Um, this may be a dumb question, but you can access the Web with Web
> tv right? So could you get a free email account from say yahoo.com and
> then use their email interface to edit the ballot and vote? All you
> would have to do then is email the votetaker and ask him/her to send a
> ballot to your yahoo account.
I just got off the phone with WebTV tech support. WebTV users have no
way to cut and paste. "The WebTV is not a computer", I was told.
A WebTV user can forward the text of an email message to someone as a
text attachment, but cannot edit that text (may not even be able to
see it while replying, didn't specify). The solution I offered Mike by
private email was to note carefully which pieces of the ballot are
likely necessary to have the votetaking software accept a reply as a
ballot, and type in just those lines in new email to the votetaker,
possibly iterating some rounds of "why wasn't my ballot accepted" with
the votetaker.
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Tim Skirvin
eas...@psu.edu (Eric Sansoni) writes:
>Gee, what a response. Only in a bureaucracy. So no matter how irrelevant
>your old systems become, you will never change or progress them in any way?
You know, this is almost kindof refreshing. Most of the time
lately I've just been reading complaints about how we should be upping the
minimum requirements to use Usenet (use HTML, etc). Here we've got someone
actually asking to lower it, for once - for the convenience of those that
can't _edit text_ on their own.
Sure, the complaint is offensive, but it's also amusing.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<URL:http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/> Skirv's Homepage <*>
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/> The Killfile Dungeon
SForsell
tski...@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) on 16 Apr 98 03:48:48 GMT in message
<tskirvin....@arh0585.urh.uiuc.edu> to news.groups wrote:
>>Gee, what a response. Only in a bureaucracy. So no matter how irrelevant
>>your old systems become, you will never change or progress them in any way?
>
> You know, this is almost kindof refreshing. Most of the time
>lately I've just been reading complaints about how we should be upping the
>minimum requirements to use Usenet (use HTML, etc). Here we've got someone
>actually asking to lower it, for once - for the convenience of those that
>can't _edit text_ on their own.
>
> Sure, the complaint is offensive, but it's also amusing.
>
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
Sometimes I can be quite dim, but how, possibly, could the complaint be
offensive or amusing? If you belong to and participate in a community, but lack
the means to easily vote on the governance over that community, I predict that
you would freak too.
Does the phrase "poll tax" come to anyone else's mind?
Web-TV'ers can read and post to newsgroups fairly easily. But, apparently, the
only way they can vote is to _exactly_ retype the entire ballot portion of the
CFV (probably without the CFV in another window that they can read at the time
they're typing -- Web-TV'ers, is that true or not?)
I'll believe it when I see it, but if the so-called NC comes into popular
usage, will those folks also be excluded from Usenet votes because they're
using non-compliant hardware or are "renting" crappy software? (Looking at the
backers, I doubt they have much interest in little, ol' Usenet.) What would
happen if the NC or a set-top box becomes the dominant access method for Usenet
participants? Should Usenet have minimum requirements besides an internet
connection?
I'm not gonna argue that Web-TV'ers deserve to be fully accomodated right here
and right now on Usenet voting, but the issue deserves more careful
consideration IMO. (Unless you can in fact vote fairly easily with Web-TV, then
my entire argument pretty much sucks.)
---------------
Scott Forsell
sfor...@aol.com or sfor...@mailexcite.com
"Laugh all you want. I'm the one who's gonna be on TV lookin' all buff!" Eric
Cartman, South Park #102
Russ Allbery
SForsell <sfor...@aol.com> writes:
> Sometimes I can be quite dim, but how, possibly, could the complaint be
> offensive or amusing? If you belong to and participate in a community,
> but lack the means to easily vote on the governance over that community,
> I predict that you would freak too.
Yup. However, I would then start yelling at the people who have deprived
me of the ability to participate in the community, namely the WebTV folks
who have given them software incapable of participating in Usenet or
e-mail in a reasonable fashion.
(My "Usenet is not a government" urge mostly suppressed.)
> Web-TV'ers can read and post to newsgroups fairly easily.
Not if they can't quote, they can't. Unless you have a radically
different idea of what posting to newsgroups consists of than I do. I
suppose they can raise original topics whenever they want and then never
participate in discussion of them?
> I'll believe it when I see it, but if the so-called NC comes into
> popular usage, will those folks also be excluded from Usenet votes
> because they're using non-compliant hardware or are "renting" crappy
> software?
Only if that software lacks basic capabilities common to pretty much all
Usenet software for the past twenty years.
> I'm not gonna argue that Web-TV'ers deserve to be fully accomodated
> right here and right now on Usenet voting, but the issue deserves more
> careful consideration IMO. (Unless you can in fact vote fairly easily
> with Web-TV, then my entire argument pretty much sucks.)
No, I think the conclusion you should be drawing is that WebTV pretty much
sucks. :)
x@x.x
>Web-TV'ers can read and post to newsgroups fairly easily. But, apparently, the
>only way they can vote is to _exactly_ retype the entire ballot portion of the
>CFV (probably without the CFV in another window that they can read at the time
>they're typing -- Web-TV'ers, is that true or not?)
The problem is that they dont have keyboards They use their remotes
to select the first letter, go through the alphabet until they get the
letter they want, select the second letter, etc.
Russ Allbery
x <x@x.x> writes:
> The problem is that they dont have keyboards They use their remotes to
> select the first letter, go through the alphabet until they get the
> letter they want, select the second letter, etc.
You can't vote on Usenet newsgroups with a pencil.
If you hook a piece of fiberoptic wire to the pencil, thread it through
the lead, connect that to a really slow monitor port on a PC, and teach
yourself how to read the single pixel blinking on and off at the end of
the pencil as ASCII letters so that you can manage to read newsgroups with
it, you *still* can't vote on Usenet newsgroups with a pencil.
'cause this is a people train. And cows can't ride on the people train.
Jay Denebeim
In article <6gvqn7$4i1$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
myron liberman <miket...@webtv.net> wrote:
>I found it impossible to vote. That is because we dont have a cut, paste
>or edit ability.
Actually, you do. It's just a little intelligence test that the webtv
people put in to seperate the morons from the totally brain dead.
Jay
(who knows Cheryl is going to say "BE NICE Jay!" and then rap my
knuckes over this post)
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.ml.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.ml.org *
Jay Denebeim
In article <353c1dfe...@news.supernews.com>,
Joe George <jge...@nbii.com> wrote:
>I'm almost 100% certain that WebTV has the functionality needed to
>properly cast a Usenet vote.
It does. When the cretins started trying to show up on rastb5m one of
the moderators took it upon herself to go and learn the interface,
then spent about a week e-mailing the dweeb telling him how he could
quote our form. She finally got him taught and he immediately
demonstrated why people who can only deal with the internet through
their television should only be allowed to use it as an output only
device. Since then, whenever she tries to help them, I smack her
around a bit :-)
Jay
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
On 16 Apr 1998 07:44:37 GMT, dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim)
wrote:
>In article <6gvqn7$4i1$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>myron liberman <miket...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>>I found it impossible to vote. That is because we dont have a cut, paste
>>or edit ability.
>
>Actually, you do. It's just a little intelligence test that the webtv
>people put in to seperate the morons from the totally brain dead.
What's this, a production of _The WebTVer Has No Clothes_?
>(who knows Cheryl is going to say "BE NICE Jay!" and then rap my
>knuckes over this post)
I think a spelling flame would have been more appropriate.
--
The opinions of this poster do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee.
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:32:43 GMT, eas...@psu.edu (Eric Sansoni) wrote:
>In article <3538ef61....@news.microserve.net>, da...@frackit.com (Dave Ratcliffe) wrote:
>>
>>If you have a problem using your WebTV interface with Usenet then talk to
>>WebTV about it. The rules will not change to make your chosen interface
>>work.
>
>Gee, what a response. Only in a bureaucracy.
How is Usenet a bureaucracy? The voting process is a very simple one,
I can't see how a bureaucratic comparison is in order.
>So no matter how irrelevant your old systems become, you will never change
>or progress them in any way?
This isn't a matter of progress, it's a matter of WebTV providing an
extremely non-functional Usenet interface. Lacking the ability to
quote makes it virtually impossible to participate in Usenet
discussion in the first place.
>You ought to work for the US government. *Convenience* of exercising that
>right is *certainly* a relevant issue.
Yes, but cutting and pasting is pretty convenient. I've used some
extremely antiquated forms of Usenet access over the years, and I
can't recall ever not being able to quote in some form (or cut and
paste). If a new provider like WebTV (I think they're only a year or
two old) chooses to provide Usenet access without quoting or cutting
and pasting, the problem lies with THEM, not with the voting system.
Cheryl Martin
According to The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee <sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMjuno.com>:
>On 16 Apr 1998 07:44:37 GMT, dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <6gvqn7$4i1$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>>myron liberman <miket...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I found it impossible to vote. That is because we dont have a cut, paste
>>>or edit ability.
>>
>>Actually, you do. It's just a little intelligence test that the webtv
>>people put in to seperate the morons from the totally brain dead.
>
>What's this, a production of _The WebTVer Has No Clothes_?
>
>>(who knows Cheryl is going to say "BE NICE Jay!" and then rap my
>>knuckes over this post)
>
>I think a spelling flame would have been more appropriate.
Nah. I gave up on his spelling years ago. As to the other issue,
there are ways around the webtv cut and paste limitations. We've had
several webtv folks figure out how to complete our registration form
(and some aol users who can't). Some of them even manage to make
coherent posts (with quotes!).
Cheryl
--
%Moderator With Attitude rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated%
%newsgroup posting address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org %
%moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.ml.org %
%zof...@deepthot.ml.org Cheryl Martin, grumpy witch %
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <6h4dgf$pjb$1...@dent.deepthot.ml.org> dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
[...]
>It does. When the cretins started trying to show up on rastb5m one of
>the moderators took it upon herself to go and learn the interface,
>then spent about a week e-mailing the dweeb telling him how he could
>quote our form.
I know that it is asking a lot, but could she transfere this knowlige to
an FAQ. This way we can make the world more tolarble for the rest of us.
--
I'm a perl programer if you need perl programing hire me. Buy easter bilbies.
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url. Support NoCeM
http://www.cit.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
Robotech_Master
On 16 Apr 1998 07:26:04 GMT, x@x.x <x@x.x> wrote:
> The problem is that they dont have keyboards They use their remotes
> to select the first letter, go through the alphabet until they get
> the letter they want, select the second letter, etc.
The WebTV model I saw at Sam's _did_ have a keyboard--and also,
"Internet For Dummies"'s section on WebTV notes that you can get a
"wireless" keyboard, but it's a waste of money, as a regular $15
computer keyboard that you can get at any computer store will work
just as well.
--
Chris Meadows aka | Co-moderator, rec.games.mecha
Robotech_Master | Co-moderator-to-be, rec.toys.transformers.moderated
robo...@eyrie.org | Co-proponent, rec.toys.transformers.*
robo...@jurai.net | - Transformers CFV is out! Don't forget to vote! -
Brian Mailman
x@x.x wrote:
>
> In article <199804160627...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, sfor...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Web-TV'ers can read and post to newsgroups fairly easily. But, apparently, the
> >only way they can vote is to _exactly_ retype the entire ballot portion of the
> >CFV (probably without the CFV in another window that they can read at the time
> >they're typing -- Web-TV'ers, is that true or not?)
>
> to select the first letter, go through the alphabet until they get the
> letter they want, select the second letter, etc.
It was my understanding that a keyboard was available (at extra dollars,
it is Microsoft after all) and not just the infrared pointer.
B/
--
Co-Proponent for proposed newsgroup, soc.support.aids-hiv+.
Discussion now taking place in news.groups.
Greg Ioannou
>The problem is that they dont have keyboards They use their remotes
>to select the first letter, go through the alphabet until they get the
>letter they want, select the second letter, etc.
Good grief!! I'll never complain about my ISP again! I thought I had it bad
when I lost my connection once or twice a week, and when e-mail would
sometimes take up to an hour to be delivered.
Greg Ioannou gr...@e-mend.com voice (416) 214 0183 ext. 10
fax (416) 214 0235
E-mend is an on-line editing service. Visit our site at http://www.e-mend.com.
Jay Denebeim
In article <6h5026$333$1...@dent.deepthot.ml.org>,
Cheryl Martin <zof...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> wrote:
>(and some aol users who can't). Some of them even manage to make
>coherent posts (with quotes!).
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say coherent :-) Seriously though, I
just checked my database, and 7 webtv users have managed to fathom the
form and have managed to successfully register. One of them has even
made 54 posts and two others have made over 10.
t.r.mcloughlin
SForsell wrote:
> I'm not gonna argue that Web-TV'ers deserve to be fully accomodated right here
> and right now on Usenet voting, but the issue deserves more careful
> consideration IMO.
As with all things usenet, the voting support solutions have
evolved over time as the nature of usenet changed. This
work was performed because people were interested and
knowledgable, volunteered their time and skills, and cooperated
with other interested folks.
I'm glad to see that the WebTV folks are interested, and if
any of them that have the skills would volunteer them to
improve the existing vote management solution, I'm sure
their efforts will be appreciated by the community at large.
trm
David Stinson
WebTV users can use FORWARD to copy text to the mail to be sent.
--
David A. Stinson Home E-mail: dsti...@ix.netcomz.com or
Remove the 'z' for mail dast...@zaol.com
Web: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html
"No electrons were harmed in the production of this message"
addCode: ADp3 aR2 D6 Fw nLIA k6
Neil Crellin
dsti...@ix.netcom.com (David Stinson) writes:
> WebTV users can use FORWARD to copy text to the mail to be sent.
When I spoke to the WebTV tech support, they said this would let you
attach the original message as a text attachment but not edit it.
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Jay Denebeim
In article <3537A9...@uscom.com>,
t.r.mcloughlin <tmcl...@uscom.com> wrote:
>I'm sure
>their efforts will be appreciated by the community at large.
Actually, I'd imagine the community at large would prefer it if webtv
users didn't figure out how to post.
SForsell
dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim) on 18 Apr 1998 04:43:46 GMT in message
<6h9b22$r37$1...@dent.deepthot.ml.org> to news.groups wrote:
>>I'm sure
>>their efforts will be appreciated by the community at large.
>
>Actually, I'd imagine the community at large would prefer it if webtv
>users didn't figure out how to post.
Why? Because they're new to Usenet or because they use Web TV? I find the
inference to the assumed cluelessness of Web TV users to be flat-out
deplorable.
Maybe they won't quote and attribute properly until they have access to an
improved newsreader , but is their input now any less valid because they don't
have home access to a "real" computer?
Generally, new users will make new user missteps until called on those
mistakes, or until they lurk long enough to learn the ropes. Will Web TV users
be somehow less able to pick up on "acceptable" behavior than all the others
that preceded them? The feedback loop is the same regardless of your access
method or ISP -- post stupid and you'll reap the same rewards.
I'm done kvetching now and want to steer this back on topic: can Web TV'ers
vote without _exactly_ retyping the entire vote portion of a CFV?
Whether the answer is yes or no, it appears that a frequently posted Usenet
Voting FAQ addressing this and other concerns would be very welcome. The Usenet
creation FAQ's are great, but AFAIK there is no voting oriented FAQ.
David E. Ross
[The following is reposted because Pacific Bell Internet's (PBI) news
server crashed again. Although PBI claimed that newsgroup messages
submitted during the outage were merely backlogged, most were actually
lost. This cluelessness is typical of PBI. Note: Other PBI subscribers
are less charitable and claim that PBI deliberately lies about the
status of its system and the quality of its service.]
Eric Sansoni wrote:
>
> In article <3538ef61....@news.microserve.net>, da...@frackit.com (Dave Ratcliffe) wrote:
> >
> >If you have a problem using your WebTV interface with Usenet then talk to
> >WebTV about it. The rules will not change to make your chosen interface
> >work.
>
> Gee, what a response. Only in a bureaucracy. So no matter how irrelevant
> your old systems become, you will never change or progress them in any way?
> You ought to work for the US government. *Convenience* of exercising that
> right is *certainly* a relevant issue. It's not the same issue as the right
> to vote, but it's not something you can just blow off either. If there was
> no voting booth for congressional elections within 200 miles of you, don't
> you think the people and the government would do something about it? Do you
> think they should? If you can make it *easier* for people to exercise their
> rights and privileges, you damn well better do your best to do it, instead
> of preaching the status quo. Otherwise what good are you to anybody?
A black and white TV set with only 12 channels would be a cheap method
of receiving TV shows. Someone who buys such a TV set should not then
complain because he does not see color and cannot receive ESPN or
CSPAN.
WebTV is a cheap method of connecting to the Internet. [Completing the
analogy is left as an exercise for the reader.]
WebTV is progress??
--
David E. Ross
In the California Legislature, two bills would make spam illegal.
AB 1629 makes spamming a civil offense, subject to damages
recoverable by a plaintiff. AB 1676 makes spamming a criminal
offense, subject to a fine.
Abby Franquemont
In article <6h9b22$r37$1...@dent.deepthot.ml.org>,
>
>>I'm sure
>>their efforts will be appreciated by the community at large.
>
>Actually, I'd imagine the community at large would prefer it if webtv
>users didn't figure out how to post.
I've seen numerous webtv users who do go to great effort to be good
USENET participants, even to typing in stuff they can't quote, like
some small handful of early AOL users did back when AOL first hit
USENET.
OTOH as I happened to have occasion to be reading alt.test a bunch
the past couple of days, I noted a total slew of peculiar articles
looking very spew-riffic with elf...@webtv.net in the From: line.
Upon examination they were mail2news'ed through nym.alias.net, and
crossposted to alt.test and alt.discuss.family.talk, with horrid-
looking MIMEd message bodies from WebTV-Mail. Yecccch. I think I
might have liked the ol' ASCII art dancing bear newgroups better.
--
Abby Franquemont Nothing cures insomnia like the realization
J. Random BOFH that it's time to get up. --Fortune program
Phil Anderson
sfor...@aol.com writes:
>Should Usenet have minimum requirements besides an internet
>connection?
What makes you think an Internet connection is required?
--
----------------------------------------------
Phil Anderson *** ha...@sloth.southern.co.nz
----------------------------------------------
"No-one is equal to anyone else!"
Eric Sansoni
In article <353d71d8....@news.microserve.net>, da...@frackit.com wrote:
>
>Apparently the lowest priced version isn't even suitable for easily
>writing/replying to email. The question is, should the group creation process
>be "dumbed down" to accomodate software that is light years _behind_ what was
>available 20 years ago?
That's not the right attitude. For one thing it's not the group creation
process, but just the voting process. Why shouldn't this be as easy as
possible for anyone to do? What is the argument against that? The only
problem here is people who don't want to change the status quo. If the
process was being developed right now, all of the various methods of
modern-day internet access would be taken into consideration. How exactly
does saying, "let webtv change their software" help the people who have
these complaints? Or does it not matter how many individuals' concerns are
disregarded in the political standoff against webtv? I don't know how to
have a productive discussion about it when people seem more interested in
bashing "newbies" and anyone who access the net a different (even easier or
cheaper) way than they do. Who really cares how someone accesses the net?
There are many wonderful contributors to groups I read from AOL and WEBTV.
The perpetuation of stereotypes on this thread is juvenile and moronic. I
make the comparison to a bureaucracy because that's when simple things are
made far more complicated than they have to be. Why not a simpler interface
for voting, like a line for the name of the poll, the brief of each
question, and a response? Why not some kind of a web form as an option for
voting?
-Eric S.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
-Albert Einstein
POTF2 and 12" Collector's Guide: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/3177/
Russ Allbery
Eric Sansoni <eas...@psu.edu> writes:
> That's not the right attitude. For one thing it's not the group
> creation process, but just the voting process. Why shouldn't this be as
> easy as possible for anyone to do? What is the argument against that?
It shouldn't be as easy as possible to cheat.
> The only problem here is people who don't want to change the status quo.
Look again.
> Why not a simpler interface for voting, like a line for the name of the
> poll, the brief of each question, and a response?
If you take the charters out of the CFV (and arguably if you take the
rationales out of the CFV) you are denying a lot of the people who will be
voting any context whatsoever, since many of them don't (despite repeated
suggestions) actually read the discussion. Often the vote can be very
deceptive without that context.
> Why not some kind of a web form as an option for voting?
Because votetakers shouldn't have to go to the effort of maintaining two
different voting methods, because substantial numbers of people who read
Usenet do not have web access, and because that requires a server that
allows CGI scripts and a random votetaker may not have such a thing
available.
Eric Sansoni
In article <m3emyu9...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
It's pretty darn easy to cheat as it is now. I'd like to see better methods
developed to combat that as much as anything.
>> Why not a simpler interface for voting, like a line for the name of the
>> poll, the brief of each question, and a response?
>
>If you take the charters out of the CFV (and arguably if you take the
>rationales out of the CFV)
I didn't say to do that. I simply said don't require the cutting and
pasting of that specially formatted voting box. Allow people to write only
the necessary information in replying to the CFV. Enough that they can
start on a blank page and fill it in quickly without error.
>> Why not some kind of a web form as an option for voting?
>
>Because votetakers shouldn't have to go to the effort of maintaining two
>different voting methods,
I simply suggest that it be an open option to votetakers. Nobody should be
forced to do it, but they can if they want to.
>because substantial numbers of people who read Usenet do not have web
>access,
Yeah, I'm sure... Where's that number now, and how fast is it going down?
>and because that requires a server that
>allows CGI scripts and a random votetaker may not have such a thing
>available.
Then he can exercise his option to stick with the Usenet vote.
Taki Kogoma
sfor...@aol.com (SForsell) is alleged to have submitted
message <199804160627...@ladder03.news.aol.com> to news.groups:
>Should Usenet have minimum requirements besides an internet
>connection?
Since when is an internet connection required for usenet?
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Manuel Silva
On 18 Apr 1998 04:43:46 GMT, dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim)
wrote:
>Actually, I'd imagine the community at large would prefer it if webtv
>users didn't figure out how to post.
Maybe this is true, but this is because the majority of webTV
users don't use newsgroups, so they shouldn't vote (the ones that
don't use usenet).
I don't mind that webtv users vote on groups, if they are
users of usenet. I don't like they vote, just to make a favor to a
friend who likes is proposed ng passes.
------------------------
Manuel Silva
mjosilvaATmail.telepac.pt
(e-mail reply: AT -> @)
------------------------
t.r.mcloughlin
Eric Sansoni wrote:
> That's not the right attitude. For one thing it's not the group creation
> process, but just the voting process. Why shouldn't this be as easy as
> possible for anyone to do? What is the argument against that? The only
> problem here is people who don't want to change the status quo. If the
> process was being developed right now, all of the various methods of
> modern-day internet access would be taken into consideration. How exactly
> does saying, "let webtv change their software" help the people who have
> these complaints?
WebTV has income, profit, staff, resources, etc. "Usenet" has
volunteers, Other People's Money, Other People's Resources.
You tell me where the most likely solution lies...
t "follow the money" rm
Hank Fung (SoCalTip)
In article <6hd4ap$1g...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>,
Eric Sansoni <eas...@psu.edu> wrote:
>I didn't say to do that. I simply said don't require the cutting and
>pasting of that specially formatted voting box. Allow people to write only
>the necessary information in replying to the CFV. Enough that they can
>start on a blank page and fill it in quickly without error.
>
I believe Jim Davis has that kind of ballot. Once upon a time, most of
the votetakers had a ballot where you would only fill out "I vote YES
on whatever.group". Now, all that has gone. Why?
>>Because votetakers shouldn't have to go to the effort of maintaining two
>>different voting methods,
>
>I simply suggest that it be an open option to votetakers. Nobody should be
>forced to do it, but they can if they want to.
>
The only problem is the fraud that would come out. i.e., I could use
my university's "first initial-last name" system, and by simply clicking
the back button, I could create votes for 200 people in a span of
under an hour. The only option would be using cookies to track votes,
but many browsers, including Lynx and Mosaic, will not use cookies.
>Yeah, I'm sure... Where's that number now, and how fast is it going down?
>
There are still millions of people, especially in non-Western countries,
that do not have web access, but have Usenet access through a Fidonet-like
relay. See www.mids.org for more information.
--
**Hank Fung****************************************hf...@lerami.lerctr.org**
Finally, a web site with content: http://www.lerctr.org/~hfung/
Southern California Transit Information at http://socaltip.lerctr.org/
Jon Bell
In article <Erou9...@lerami.lerctr.org>,
Hank Fung (SoCalTip) <hf...@lerami.lerctr.org> wrote:
>In article <6hd4ap$1g...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>,
>Eric Sansoni <eas...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>>I didn't say to do that. I simply said don't require the cutting and
>>pasting of that specially formatted voting box. Allow people to write only
>>the necessary information in replying to the CFV. Enough that they can
>>start on a blank page and fill it in quickly without error.
>
>I believe Jim Davis has that kind of ballot. Once upon a time, most of
>the votetakers had a ballot where you would only fill out "I vote YES
>on whatever.group". Now, all that has gone. Why?
I *have* voted in that fashion sometime during the past year, so at least
one votetaker (maybe Jim Davis) still uses that kind of ballot at least
sometimes.
But I remember that one of the reasons for switching to the preformatted
"checkbox" ballots was that an incredible number of people managed to
mess up even a simple statement like "I vote YES on soc.culture.foobar"
in such a way as to make it ambiguous, for example by misspelling the
group name or getting it just plain wrong. I particularly remember the
vote on soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya as being bad in that regard.
And when you have a reorg involving the creation/deletion of several
groups, each of which has to be voted on separately, a preformatted
ballot is almost mandatory to preserve the vote-taker's sanity.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu>
Jay Denebeim
In article <199804180709...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
SForsell <sfor...@aol.com> wrote:
>Why? Because they're new to Usenet or because they use Web TV? I find the
>inference to the assumed cluelessness of Web TV users to be flat-out
>deplorable.
So would I, notice I didn't say a word about this until they'd been
demonstrating cluelessness for a year.
>Maybe they won't quote and attribute properly until they have access to an
>improved newsreader , but is their input now any less valid because they don't
>have home access to a "real" computer?
Um, yeah. The price of a real computer is only about twice as much as
a webtv. Therefore the only reason they have it is either they're not
bright enough to use a real computer, or they don't care enough to
learn how to use one. Neither of those bodes well for their ability
to compose a coherent thought, and they therefore have no business on
usenet. (IMNSHO)
>Generally, new users will make new user missteps until called on those
>mistakes, or until they lurk long enough to learn the ropes. Will Web TV users
>be somehow less able to pick up on "acceptable" behavior than all the others
>that preceded them? The feedback loop is the same regardless of your access
>method or ISP -- post stupid and you'll reap the same rewards.
Um, hate to burst your bubble, but AOLoids demonstrate precisely this
inability, and compared to WebTV users they're Einsteins.
>I'm done kvetching now and want to steer this back on topic: can Web TV'ers
>vote without _exactly_ retyping the entire vote portion of a CFV?
Yes. (and no, I'm not going to help them do it. Think of it as an
intelligence test.)
Jay (who still thinks letting AOLoids onto the net was a bad idea.)
Jay Denebeim
>WebTV is a cheap method of connecting to the Internet. [Completing the
>analogy is left as an exercise for the reader.]
I think it's more easy than cheap. I don't know what they charge, but
I don't believe it's a bargan.
Jay
David E. Ross
Jay Denebeim wrote:
>
> In article <3538D9...@acm.org>, David E. Ross <ros...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >WebTV is a cheap method of connecting to the Internet. [Completing the
> >analogy is left as an exercise for the reader.]
>
> I think it's more easy than cheap. I don't know what they charge, but
> I don't believe it's a bargan.
It must be cheaper than buying a computer. At least that is how WebTV
was initially announced. The whole idea was that people who only want
to surf the Web did not have to invest in a PC or Mac.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6727>
(I keep changing it, so visit again.)
Robotech_Master
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 07:17:27 -0700, David E. Ross <ros...@acm.org> wrote:
> It must be cheaper than buying a computer. At least that is how
> WebTV was initially announced. The whole idea was that people who
> only want to surf the Web did not have to invest in a PC or Mac.
For the same prices as a WebTV, you can have someone who knows what
he's doing find you a decent 486 or older Mac (SE/30? the numbering
scheme mystifies me still), which will be perfectly ample for surfing
the web, and probably do it better than a WebTV would. I use a 486
DX2/66 myself, with RedHat 5.0 on it.
Russ Allbery
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> writes:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> It's also a means by which one assures that the votes actually are
>> clear. You cannot possibly misinterpret a filled-in ballot. If you're
>> running a vote on a rec.pets.dogs.* reorg and someone sends mail to the
>> voting address saying "I want to read posts about dogs," what's that
>> supposed to mean?
> Straw man. The current guidelines state that the vote must be
> unambiguous, and even give a suggested form for the vote. "I vote for
> the group a.b.c as proposed." Such a vote should still be accepted.
It's not a straw man, John, you just missed my point. Yes, one can obtain
a clear vote via other means, but that wasn't what I said. I said that
the ballot is a means by which to *assure* that the vote is clear, or to
be more precise a way in which to clearly and completely describe what a
clear vote is, make it both easy to issue a clear vote and obvious that
one has to do so, and programmatically reject votes that aren't clear.
It's amazing the number of ways people manage to mangle the single line
statement form. Particularly by misspelling the name of the group they're
voting on.
Kate Wrightson
In article <6hg4u1$43n$1...@news.orst.edu>,
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>Along these lines, I note that the complaint is about WEB-tv, not
>USENET-tv. The Web still isn't USENET.
I just have to say that I am deeply amused by the concept of USENET-TV. I
would definitely pay extra for a cable channel like that.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
ka...@eyrie.org Kate Wrightson www.eyrie.org/~kate
Ken Arromdee
In article <6hetdl$5jc$1...@dent.deepthot.ml.org>,
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.ml.org> wrote:
>>Maybe they won't quote and attribute properly until they have access to an
>>improved newsreader , but is their input now any less valid because they don't
>>have home access to a "real" computer?
>Um, yeah. The price of a real computer is only about twice as much as
>a webtv. Therefore the only reason they have it is either they're not
>bright enough to use a real computer, or they don't care enough to
>learn how to use one. Neither of those bodes well for their ability
>to compose a coherent thought, and they therefore have no business on
>usenet. (IMNSHO)
Or they could be teenagers living at home with their parents, who won't buy
a computer. (And even if a lot of teenagers are clueless, you can't claim
that every single one with cheap parents is.)
Or they might have gotten a Web TV while clueless, and have later gotten
clueful enough to use the net, but since they already spent the money on the
Web TV, they're not going to buy a computer also.
You're also forgetting that there are different kinds of cluelessness. Lots
of people are clueless about computers, but quite competent in other areas.
*Plenty* of people cannot handle computers yet can think.
--
Ken Arromdee |They said it was *daft* to build a space
arro...@inetnow.net |station in a swamp, but I showed them! It
karr...@nyx.nyx.net |sank unto the swamp. So I built a second
http://www.inetnow.net/~arromdee|space station. That sank into the swamp too.
--------------------------------+My third space station sank into the swamp.
So I built a fourth one. That fell into a time warp and _then_ sank into the
swamp. But the fifth one... stayed up! --Monty Python/Babylon 5
Ginger Glaser
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 15:12:42 GMT, eas...@psu.edu (Eric Sansoni) wrote:
>>If you take the charters out of the CFV (and arguably if you take the
>>rationales out of the CFV)
>
>pasting of that specially formatted voting box. Allow people to write only
>the necessary information in replying to the CFV. Enough that they can
>start on a blank page and fill it in quickly without error.
>
vote. If you always use the same format/size ballot, then very little
script editing is needed, while charters and rationalle lengths vary
greatly.
Ginger
Ginger Glaser
>The only problem is the fraud that would come out. i.e., I could use
>my university's "first initial-last name" system, and by simply clicking
>the back button, I could create votes for 200 people in a span of
>under an hour. The only option would be using cookies to track votes,
>but many browsers, including Lynx and Mosaic, will not use cookies.
>
Or even better, write a script to do it for you. If you ever follow
any of ESPNs "which college has the best ____" you quickly see it is a
contest of which college has CS students who feel like writing these
scripts. Half the time they have to invalidate the whole contest. And
I wouldn't be too happy with cookies as a solution for another reason
- its trivial to wipe out that file, I do it all the time.
Ginger
Ginger Glaser
On 20 Apr 1998 07:27:49 GMT, dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim)
wrote:
>>Maybe they won't quote and attribute properly until they have access to an
>>improved newsreader , but is their input now any less valid because they don't
>>have home access to a "real" computer?
>
>Um, yeah. The price of a real computer is only about twice as much as
>a webtv. Therefore the only reason they have it is either they're not
>bright enough to use a real computer, or they don't care enough to
>learn how to use one. Neither of those bodes well for their ability
>to compose a coherent thought, and they therefore have no business on
>usenet. (IMNSHO)
>
Or, in the case of one person I know, they got it as a gift and can
now read at home instead of goofing off at work. Don't jump to
conclusions please. Of course, in her case, she has figured out how to
vote, do all sorts of editing on mailing lists etc.
>>Generally, new users will make new user missteps until called on those
>>mistakes, or until they lurk long enough to learn the ropes. Will Web TV users
>>be somehow less able to pick up on "acceptable" behavior than all the others
>>that preceded them? The feedback loop is the same regardless of your access
>>method or ISP -- post stupid and you'll reap the same rewards.
>
>Um, hate to burst your bubble, but AOLoids demonstrate precisely this
>inability, and compared to WebTV users they're Einsteins.
>
Thats because many of them leave to other ISPs when they get the
experience the poster mentioned.
Ginger, who thinks idiots and clooless types should be rated on their
own merit, not their ISP
Pedro Sena
Kate Wrightson wrote in message <6hg5n0$t...@eyrie.org>...
>>Along these lines, I note that the complaint is about WEB-tv, not
>>USENET-tv. The Web still isn't USENET.
>I just have to say that I am deeply amused by the concept of USENET-TV. I
>would definitely pay extra for a cable channel like that.
Much more relaxing to sit in one's couch and answer mail, or have fun in the
newsgroups ...... ohhhh yeahhhh.....
Dave Cunningham
In article <m3emyu9...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>, r...@stanford.edu says...
>
>Eric Sansoni <eas...@psu.edu> writes:
>
>> Why not a simpler interface for voting, like a line for the name of the
>> poll, the brief of each question, and a response?
>
>If you take the charters out of the CFV (and arguably if you take the
>rationales out of the CFV) you are denying a lot of the people who will be
>voting any context whatsoever, since many of them don't (despite repeated
>suggestions) actually read the discussion. Often the vote can be very
>deceptive without that context.
>
>
Um -- does the *vote* need to include the Charter? I thought not ...
As long as the voter indicates the general issue (name of applicable newsgroup
in most cases), the vote (yes, no, abstain) and who he or she is ... ought
that not be enough? Dumping on the illiterati makes no sense -- if a person
can participate at all in a newsgroup, they should have a voice on changes
thereto, IMHO.
Dave Cunningham
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Commitee
On 20 Apr 1998 11:55:28 -0700, ka...@eyrie.org (Kate Wrightson) wrote:
>In article <6hg4u1$43n$1...@news.orst.edu>,
>John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>
>>Along these lines, I note that the complaint is about WEB-tv, not
>>USENET-tv. The Web still isn't USENET.
>
>I just have to say that I am deeply amused by the concept of USENET-TV. I
>would definitely pay extra for a cable channel like that.
It would cost way too much though because so many people would be
buying it for the porno.
--
The opinions of this poster do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee.
SForsell
dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim) on 1998/04/20 in message
<6hetdl$5jc$1...@dent.deepthot.ml.org> to news.groups wrote:
>In article <199804180709...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>SForsell <sfor...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Why? Because they're new to Usenet or because they use Web TV? I find the
>>inference to the assumed cluelessness of Web TV users to be flat-out
>>deplorable.
>So would I, notice I didn't say a word about this until they'd been
>demonstrating cluelessness for a year.
I'm not a moderator, so I can't "feel" your pain; but I can imagine it. You
probably see a lot of cluelessness -- "Me toos!", replies as if the newsgroup
were a chat room, and other related garbage. As a moderator, you do have my
deep respect for doing a difficult and unheralded job, but I've got some
quibbles with your arguments listed below.
>>Maybe they won't quote and attribute properly until they have access to an
>>improved newsreader , but is their input now any less valid because they
don't
>>have home access to a "real" computer?
>Um, yeah. The price of a real computer is only about twice as much as
>a webtv. Therefore the only reason they have it is either they're not
>bright enough to use a real computer, or they don't care enough to
>learn how to use one. Neither of those bodes well for their ability
>to compose a coherent thought, and they therefore have no business on
>usenet. (IMNSHO)
<snide> No comment. I'll let your comments about the relative wealth,
brightness, caring, coherence, and usenet-worthiness of Web TV users stand as
presented by you.
>>Generally, new users will make new user missteps until called on those
>>mistakes, or until they lurk long enough to learn the ropes. Will Web TV
users
>>be somehow less able to pick up on "acceptable" behavior than all the others
>>that preceded them? The feedback loop is the same regardless of your access
>>method or ISP -- post stupid and you'll reap the same rewards.
>Um, hate to burst your bubble, but AOLoids demonstrate precisely this
>inability, and compared to WebTV users they're Einsteins.
Again, I'll let your comments about AOL and Web-TV users and they're inability
to learn stand without comment.
>>I'm done kvetching now and want to steer this back on topic: can Web TV'ers
>>vote without [snip] retyping the entire vote portion of a CFV?
>Yes. (and no, I'm not going to help them do it. Think of it as an
>intelligence test.)
Jay, please stop, you tease.
<sarcasm>(If I receive a positive ACK on an my ABSTAIN Web-TV compliant vote,
does that make me more smug than you, or just more intelligent than you? As an
AOLoid, I'm having trouble with the logic and need some help from my
betters.)</sarcasm>
>Jay (who still thinks letting AOLoids onto the net was a bad idea.)
Scott (who has an opinion about Babylon 5, but chooses not to share it.)
</snide>
>--
>* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
>* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org *
>* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.ml.org *
>* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.ml.org *
Russ Allbery
Dave Cunningham <col...@compuserve.com> writes:
> As long as the voter indicates the general issue (name of applicable
> newsgroup in most cases), the vote (yes, no, abstain) and who he or she
> is ... ought that not be enough?
Depends on whether we're trying to support automated vote counting. I
think that we should. (Note that in voting for a real world election, you
can't just scribble "I vote for A, B, and C and against D" on the back and
hand it back, or at least you can't in my part of the world. You have to
actually fill in the little ballot marks.)
David Bostwick
In article <Occ95UG...@nih2naac.prod2.compuserve.com>,
col...@compuserve.com says...
>
>Um -- does the *vote* need to include the Charter? I thought not ...
>
No, but it usually (depending on the votetaker) must include a marker that
lets the software decide which vote the ballot belongs to. Most votetakers
are taking several votes at the same time, and it's a lot easier to let
software handle things than to do it manually, even with mail filters. I've
used both the ballot form and "I vote yes on rec.foo.bar" methods, and the
ballot form is easier by far.
>As long as the voter indicates the general issue (name of applicable
newsgroup
>in most cases), the vote (yes, no, abstain) and who he or she is ... ought
>that not be enough? Dumping on the illiterati makes no sense -- if a person
>can participate at all in a newsgroup, they should have a voice on changes
>thereto, IMHO.
>
Especially for multi-group votes, a ballot form is preferable to any other
method. Processing "I vote..." for 4-5 groups is a pain without a ballot
form. And how close would you require the spelling to be to allow a vote for
a group? Would "I vote for that new stamp thingy" be enough? I've had
"votes" like that.
I've taken several ballots from WebTV voters. I've never dumped on them for
using a product with limited capabilities. It's not impossible for them to
vote, and if a person wishes to remain a member of the illiterati, that's
his/her choice.
NOTE: USENET IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, but...
You can read and write about the government all you want. Until you take the
time to obtain the ability to vote, however, you really have no say in the
process. Getting the ablility to vote for a newsgroup isn't a whole lot
harder than for voting for President.
myron liberman
Jay: Who do you actually think you are?
One big mouth jerk. Get lost nerd.
Mike
Jay Denebeim
In article <6hg5dm$46p$1...@news.orst.edu>,
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
> You are seriously saying that a system which does not let you quote
> material in an email reply is progress? Oh, please.
Well, if you can't read, quoting is kinda pointless. Put in that
perspective it would be understandable for the webTV programmers to
blow off that functionality :-) (if it was really impossible to
quote, which it's not.)
BTW I got a little love letter from a webTV dimwit, he called me a
'big mouth' *snort*. Welcome to usenet 'lil feller, land of the big
mouths. (and he hasn't figured out how to quote yet, so I really have
no idea which of my messages he was referring to :-))
Jay (Who's wondering how long it will be before the webTVers invoke
Godwin's law on this thread.)
Jay Denebeim
In article <6hjfe9$ob1$1...@newsd-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Ah, thank you so much for demonstrating my point, bubba. I'm
surprised there's not 20 more posts from the land of the couch potatos
just saying 'Me too!' Without quoting 100 lines from the previous
post as pre-webTV clue deficit inDUHviduals were wont to do.
(Hmm, now that I think of it, I guess putting the intelligence test
before ability to quote on webTV wasn't a bad idea after all. It
saves us some usenet bandwidth, at least)
Jay
Gillam Kerley
Jay Denebeim wrote:
>
> In article <6hg5dm$46p$1...@news.orst.edu>,
> John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>
> > You are seriously saying that a system which does not let you quote
> > material in an email reply is progress? Oh, please.
>
> Well, if you can't read, quoting is kinda pointless. Put in that
> perspective it would be understandable for the webTV programmers to
> blow off that functionality :-) (if it was really impossible to
> quote, which it's not.)
>
> BTW I got a little love letter from a webTV dimwit, he called me a
> 'big mouth' *snort*. Welcome to usenet 'lil feller, land of the big
> mouths. (and he hasn't figured out how to quote yet, so I really have
> no idea which of my messages he was referring to :-))
Sorry to interrupt this little love fest for a relevant question, but:
(1) Can't WebTV users *forward* messages to a third party, e.g. the
votetaker, even if the recipient is the original sender of the message?
And can't they add text as an intro to the forwarded message, just like
everyone else?
(2) If so, why not let WebTV users forward his/her ballot to the
votetaker with additional text (his/her vote) added?
(Not that I want to encourage the Webbies, but it could be worse ...
they could use AOL instead.)
We now return you to the regularly scheduled flame wars, which are
already in progress.
GK
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Commitee
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:55:49 -0500, Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com>
wrote:
>Sorry to interrupt this little love fest for a relevant question, but:
>
>(1) Can't WebTV users *forward* messages to a third party, e.g. the
>votetaker, even if the recipient is the original sender of the message?
Yes.
> And can't they add text as an intro to the forwarded message, just like
> everyone else?
No. (At least that's what I read elsewhere in this thread from
someone who talked to WebTV tech support.)
Jay Denebeim
In article <353ffcd6...@news.microserve.net>,
Dave Ratcliffe <da...@frackit.com> wrote:
>Remember, you don't get any points unless you can prove he didn't do that
>intentionally.
Oh, he sent me basically the same post in e-mail and on the
newsgroup. So, not only did he post and e-mail a response to a
message (which is pretty rude) HE DID IT BY HAND INduhVIDUALLY.
I'd say that's pretty damned clueless. BTW 'ole moron is the guy who
started this thread. Guess it's gotten a bit too hot for him.
Perhaps he should start working on a Mr. Belvedere RFD or something.
Neil Crellin
sonny-lives-in-our-hearts@NOSPAM*juno.com (The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Commitee) writes:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:55:49 -0500, Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com>
> wrote:
> > And can't they add text as an intro to the forwarded message, just like
> > everyone else?
>
> No. (At least that's what I read elsewhere in this thread from
> someone who talked to WebTV tech support.)
The forwarded text is attached as a text attachment, uneditable,
possibly unseen during message composition, and as such the webTV user
cannot fill in the ballot blanks to vote this way. Of course, they
could type the ballot in from scratch, but then they already could do
that without forwarding.
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Russ Allbery
Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com> writes:
> So my question becomes: If a Webbie composes a message which
> unambiguously indicates a "YES" or "NO" vote, and attaches a copy of the
> CFV, thereby unambiguously indicating what proposal he/she is voting on
> and that he/she received the CFV from the proper source, what is the
> problem?
It can't be handled by software.
> What is gained by ignoring it?
Automation.
Jay Denebeim
In article <vb63ef5...@wallaby.Stanford.EDU>,
Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>The forwarded text is attached as a text attachment, uneditable,
>possibly unseen during message composition, and as such the webTV user
>cannot fill in the ballot blanks to vote this way. Of course, they
>could type the ballot in from scratch, but then they already could do
>that without forwarding.
Well, this may actually be the case. The other moderator says you can
just forward stuff, however checking my registration logs showed no
valid registrations from webtv users since february. (these logs get
rather large and I have to delete them periodically) The several webtv
users I mentioned that post to the newsgroup all registered before
that time.
I checked my newsgroup and rastb5 and there was no quoteing by any
webtv users, even the literate ones.
So, it appears I was misled by what my cohort said.
They *can* post multipart MIME and what appears to be HTML though.
Gillam Kerley
Neil Crellin wrote:
>
> The forwarded text is attached as a text attachment, uneditable,
> possibly unseen during message composition, and as such the webTV user
> cannot fill in the ballot blanks to vote this way. Of course, they
> could type the ballot in from scratch, but then they already could do
> that without forwarding.
So my question becomes: If a Webbie composes a message which
unambiguously indicates a "YES" or "NO" vote, and attaches a copy of the
CFV, thereby unambiguously indicating what proposal he/she is voting on
and that he/she received the CFV from the proper source, what is the
problem? Why not count that vote? What is gained by ignoring it?
GK
Pedro Sena
Gillam Kerley wrote in message <6hmnll$9...@newsops.execpc.com>...
>So my question becomes: If a Webbie composes a message which
>unambiguously indicates a "YES" or "NO" vote, and attaches a copy of the
>CFV, thereby unambiguously indicating what proposal he/she is voting on
>and that he/she received the CFV from the proper source, what is the
>problem? Why not count that vote? What is gained by ignoring it?
I can see that the instructions are in the form. But I can also see that
anyone less used to work with these things can also find themselves
confused. According to two people that have responded to me, this is
intentional, to forcre people to pay attention, in order to vote, to cut
down on the hacking and nerd'ing for votes' sakes.
I can relate to that, but I wish that the vote file itself was simpler,
rather than so convoluted. It's ok right now .. it could be better.
Generally, I won't vote on any thing because it is much too bothersome...
unless I have been asked, and I know that I want something passed.
David Bostwick
In article <6hnp8r$9je$1...@news.us.world.net>, a...@accces.com says...
[snip]
>I can relate to that, but I wish that the vote file itself was simpler,
>rather than so convoluted. It's ok right now .. it could be better.
>Generally, I won't vote on any thing because it is much too bothersome...
>unless I have been asked, and I know that I want something passed.
>
>
If it's "ok," why does it need to be better? It can't be both "convoluted"
and "ok." Make up your mind.
I've tried several iterations of the ballot in the 2.5 years I've been one of
the UVV, and I know other votetakers have done the same. Murphy's law remains
in effect. No matter what changes you make to make it foolproof, someone will
find a way to do it wrong.
The process is not really that hard. You read the message, hit the "reply"
key, make a couple of edits, and send the message on its merry way. That
takes maybe 10 seconds. If you find that too hard, you just don't have much
interest in voting.
t.r.mcloughlin
David Bostwick wrote:
> a...@accces.com says...
> >I can relate to that, but I wish that the vote file itself was simpler,
> >rather than so convoluted. It's ok right now .. it could be better.
> >Generally, I won't vote on any thing because it is much too bothersome...
> >unless I have been asked, and I know that I want something passed.
> If it's "ok," why does it need to be better? It can't be both "convoluted"
> and "ok." Make up your mind.
More revealing to me is the description of the conditions
under which he will expend the effort. Sounds to me as if
the process is perfectly tuned.
The only time people should vote is when they know that
they want something passed (i.e., they are interested).
trm
Gillam Kerley
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com> writes:
>
> > So my question becomes: If a Webbie composes a message which
> > unambiguously indicates a "YES" or "NO" vote, and attaches a copy of the
> > CFV, thereby unambiguously indicating what proposal he/she is voting on
> > and that he/she received the CFV from the proper source, what is the
> > problem?
>
>
>
This isn't a presidential election, or even the city council. The hotly
contested stamp thing garnered only 400 votes. Organizations hold
elections with more votes than that and they tally the votes by hand.
Allowing webtv users to vote wouldn't rule out automating the rest of
the vote count. Normal votes could be compiled by computer, with the
Webbies counted manually (even sent to a different mailbox if this was
the only way to parse them). So, for instance, WebTV might have added
10 to 40 votes to the stamps debacle. I can't see how counting ten to
forty non-automated votes would create a massive hardship (particularly
in comparison to the other hardships the votetaker was subjected to).
GK
t.r.mcloughlin
John Stanley wrote:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> >Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com> writes:
> >> So my question becomes: If a Webbie composes a message which
> >> unambiguously indicates a "YES" or "NO" vote, and attaches a copy of the
> >> CFV, thereby unambiguously indicating what proposal he/she is voting on
> >> and that he/she received the CFV from the proper source, what is the
> >> problem?
> >It can't be handled by software.
> Of course it can. Not the current software, but software could be
> written to handle it.
I always like to point out at this point in this discussion
that the efforts of the person who volunteers to incorporate
this feature into the existing volunteer-written software would
most likely be appreciated by the community at large.
Software doesn't test itself.
trm
trm
Pedro Sena
t.r.mcloughlin wrote in message <353F7E...@uscom.com>...
>David Bostwick wrote:
>More revealing to me is the description of the conditions
>under which he will expend the effort. Sounds to me as if
>the process is perfectly tuned.
I did not say that it wasn't.. I agree that it makes some sense to make sure
that people are interested enough to vote, but jimmynychristmas .. it
doesn't have to be rocket science.
>The only time people should vote is when they know that
>they want something passed (i.e., they are interested).
Which really is the case already.
Gillam Kerley
Jay Denebeim wrote:
>
> Which reminds me, I guess I'm going to have to waffle again. The
> other moderator swears that they can quote just fine if they do it
> correctly. I've seen evidence that at least two of the 9 webtv users
> on rastb5m did indeed edit a quote to register on the newsgroup.
I don't know for sure, but the rumor I heard was that a second version
of WebTV would include the ability to quote and edit; perhaps that
version is now available. That still leaves owners of version one out
in the cold, as I understand it, for the votetaking process (tho it may
be that UVVs can make exceptions on a CFV by CFV basis).
GK
Jay Denebeim
In article <6hohf7$o...@newsops.execpc.com>,
Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Allowing webtv users to vote wouldn't rule out automating the rest of
>the vote count.
They *can* actually vote. Even if they can't quote, there's not much
that they have to type, only a few lines.
Which reminds me, I guess I'm going to have to waffle again. The
other moderator swears that they can quote just fine if they do it
correctly. I've seen evidence that at least two of the 9 webtv users
on rastb5m did indeed edit a quote to register on the newsgroup. Both
of them are also pretty good posters, literate and fairly bright.
I've come back around to thinking that the intelligence test is a good
thing.
Ginger Glaser
On 22 Apr 1998 23:44:37 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com> writes:
>
>> So my question becomes: If a Webbie composes a message which
>> unambiguously indicates a "YES" or "NO" vote, and attaches a copy of the
>> CFV, thereby unambiguously indicating what proposal he/she is voting on
>> and that he/she received the CFV from the proper source, what is the
>> problem?
>
>It can't be handled by software.
>
>> What is gained by ignoring it?
>
>Automation.
Couldn't they work somewhat like mod-bots do? Look for a @webtv in the
return address and kick it out to the votetaker to count?
Ginger
ps - yes, I know it would take some time, as all the votetakers use
slightly different software, but it could work like that, at least
until there is such a huge volume of Web TV votes as to be a serious
hindrance.
t.r.mcloughlin
Gillam Kerley wrote:
> I don't know for sure, but the rumor I heard was that a second version
> of WebTV would include the ability to quote and edit; perhaps that
> version is now available. That still leaves owners of version one out
> in the cold, as I understand it, for the votetaking process (tho it may
> be that UVVs can make exceptions on a CFV by CFV basis).
Why? Wouldn't WebTV provide an accessible upgrade path for
their valued customers?
trm
Evelyn C. Leeper
In article <6ho5dd$lpt$1...@news.nero.net>,
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
> In article <m33ef5c...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> >Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com> writes:
> >> So my question becomes: If a Webbie composes a message which
> >> unambiguously indicates a "YES" or "NO" vote, and attaches a copy of the
> >> CFV, thereby unambiguously indicating what proposal he/she is voting on
> >> and that he/she received the CFV from the proper source, what is the
> >> problem?
> >
> >It can't be handled by software.
>
> written to handle it.
Are you volunteering?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"What has the study of biology taught you about the Creator, Dr. Haldane?"
"I'm not sure, but He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles."
Gillam Kerley
t.r.mcloughlin wrote:
>
> Why? Wouldn't WebTV provide an accessible upgrade path for
> their valued customers?
Given that version one was sold without the ability to quote/edit, I can
only assume that its creator adheres to the Dilbert (Dogbert?) school of
product development. So anything is possible.
Actually, I don't even know how one would go about upgrading a WebTV.
Can one download new software to it over the Net? Buy a disk? Buy a
whole new WebTV set? Beats me.
GK
Jay Denebeim
In article <3540264E...@uscom.com>,
t.r.mcloughlin <tmcl...@uscom.com> wrote:
>Why? Wouldn't WebTV provide an accessible upgrade path for
>their valued customers?
Remember webtv is now a microsoft product. The upgrade path would be
'buy a new webtv'
Kai Henningsen
ggl...@minn.net (Ginger Glaser) wrote on 24.04.98 in <3541e9eb...@news.newsguy.com>:
> On 22 Apr 1998 23:44:37 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> >Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com> writes:
> >
> >> So my question becomes: If a Webbie composes a message which
> >> unambiguously indicates a "YES" or "NO" vote, and attaches a copy of the
> >> CFV, thereby unambiguously indicating what proposal he/she is voting on
> >> and that he/she received the CFV from the proper source, what is the
> >> problem?
> >
> >It can't be handled by software.
> >
> >> What is gained by ignoring it?
> >
> >Automation.
>
> Couldn't they work somewhat like mod-bots do? Look for a @webtv in the
> return address and kick it out to the votetaker to count?
How about kicking it to WebTV tech support to convert into an appropriate
vote?
Let's do a little sanity check here.
If someone makes big money by selling inferior goods, why on earth should
volunteers invest time into working around the problems in those goods?
This is a problem created by the designers (by creating a shoddy product)
and users (by buying a shoddy product) of WebTV. Let those people solve
it. There is absolutely no reason why anyone else should be
inconvenienced.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Ginger Glaser
On 24 Apr 1998 18:55:00 +0200, kaih=6sUqR...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai
Henningsen) wrote:
>If someone makes big money by selling inferior goods, why on earth should
>volunteers invest time into working around the problems in those goods?
>
>This is a problem created by the designers (by creating a shoddy product)
>and users (by buying a shoddy product) of WebTV. Let those people solve
>it. There is absolutely no reason why anyone else should be
>inconvenienced.
>
>
>Kai
Oh good, then lets
1)quit letting people used munged addresses, especially on votes, as
it inconveniences others because people are too lazy to hit the delete
key on their mailer and
2)quit accepting aol votes, because the votetakers have to take extra
effort to check them due to their broken system of allowing one
account a number of IDs
and
3)quit doing anything to make it easier for anyone to use Usenet
Ginger
tpe...@efws.com
Am I the only one missing the point of this endless thread?
WEB TV USERS! YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE! IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE MEANS IT IS
NOT THE FAULT OF USENET! CHECK WITH THE PEOPLE THAT SOLD YOU WEB TV AND HAVE
THEM FIX IT!
Tom
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Robotech_Master
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:39:49 -0600, tpe...@efws.com <tpe...@efws.com> wrote:
> Am I the only one missing the point of this endless thread?
> WEB TV USERS! YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE! IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE
> MEANS IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF USENET! CHECK WITH THE PEOPLE THAT
> SOLD YOU WEB TV AND HAVE THEM FIX IT!
YES!!! RISE UP!!! TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST A SEA OF TROUBLES!!! STORM
BILL GATES'S MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR HOME WITH TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS AND
DEMAND THAT HE FIX YOUR FAULTY SOFTWARE!!! BURN, PILLAGE, PLUNDER!!!
Er...sorry. Don't know _what_ came over me. Really.
--
Chris Meadows aka | Co-moderator, rec.games.mecha
Robotech_Master | Co-moderator-to-be, rec.toys.transformers.moderated
robo...@eyrie.org | Co-proponent, rec.toys.transformers.*
robo...@jurai.net | - Transformers CFV is out! Don't forget to vote! -
Darby C. Lines
>Why? Wouldn't WebTV provide an accessible upgrade path for
>their valued customers?
>
As of the last I heard (I just left my job with Circuit City's tech
support department) the WebTV strategy is to sell the first generation
units at the same time as the second generation units (WebTV Plus). If
you want to upgrade you shell out the $299.99 This just goes to show that
these things are in no way equivalent to a computer, they're just another
toy to go with the VCR, DSS, and DVD.
D.
--
"Death is like finding the last jelly-bean in the bag. You wish you had
more, but you don't." From The Barbarian Verses.
Darby C. Lines <*>
<da...@goodnet.com> <http://www.goodnet.com/~darby> <ICQ:5355013>
Kai Henningsen
ggl...@minn.net (Ginger Glaser) wrote on 25.04.98 in <35420ee5...@news.newsguy.com>:
> On 24 Apr 1998 18:55:00 +0200, kaih=6sUqR...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai
> Henningsen) wrote:
>
> >If someone makes big money by selling inferior goods, why on earth should
> >volunteers invest time into working around the problems in those goods?
> >
> >This is a problem created by the designers (by creating a shoddy product)
> >and users (by buying a shoddy product) of WebTV. Let those people solve
> >it. There is absolutely no reason why anyone else should be
> >inconvenienced.
> >
> >
> >Kai
>
> Oh good, then lets
>
> 1)quit letting people used munged addresses, especially on votes, as
I'm all for that. Nonfunctional addresses have, IMHO, no place on Usenet.
> it inconveniences others because people are too lazy to hit the delete
> key on their mailer and
Your "because ..." is completely nonsensical.
> 2)quit accepting aol votes, because the votetakers have to take extra
> effort to check them due to their broken system of allowing one
> account a number of IDs
Makes no sense at all. Everybody with web access can create more IDs via
any one of the free email accounts available all over the place.
> 3)quit doing anything to make it easier for anyone to use Usenet
Completely nonsensical again.
How about coming up with a real argument?