The proposed rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson
Andrew Vernon
>WE WISH! Hopefully some votes will come from the a.f.d.g.
>discussion, such as it is, but the BTL list is our only real hope.
>If only 1/3 of the subscribers vote, that is still 200+ votes,
>which would *normally* be sufficient for the creation of a rec.music
>newsgroup. Unfortunately we have the additional hurdle of a likely
>"NO" campaign.
I would agree that BtL is our major support, but I hope the lurkers in the
alt group who like what they read will come out in support for the rec
group. Also, with regards to a 'no' campaign, I will investigate any
failure of the group with the UVV to make sure the 'no' votes are
legitimate (ie: not conceived to undermine the success of the group).
For those of you who just plain don't like Debbie Gibson, I offer this word
of advice: DON'T VOTE. Let us win or lose on our own merits. I'm sure
there is more than enough out there on the information superhighway to keep
you entertained without spoiling our efforts.
>The CFV questionaire was submitted to the UVV contacts last week.
>They acknowleded receipt and will assign a votetaker soon. Since
>the news discussion died with a fair showing of support and little
>bickering, we'll likely see a vote before September (August 29
>will mark the end of the required discussion period).
I have to take some credit for the rather quiet discussion, since my RFD
defense quickly squelched any vocal opposition. And, I haven't seen any
other Deb discussions except in the alt group, where it's business as
ususal.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Andrew Vernon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
an...@scott.net | aver...@acca.nmsu.edu
Now open at http://www.scott.net/~angus
Love is not a secret to take to the grave...
Michael Bauser
an...@scott.net (Andrew Vernon) wrote:
> I would agree that BtL is our major support, but I hope the lurkers in the
> alt group who like what they read will come out in support for the rec
> group. Also, with regards to a 'no' campaign, I will investigate any
> failure of the group with the UVV to make sure the 'no' votes are
> legitimate (ie: not conceived to undermine the success of the group).
What is that supposed to mean? I'm pretty sure *all* `no' votes are
"conceived to undermine the success of the group" -- `no' means that
the voter doesn't think the group should exist, and that's *all* it
means. You seem perilously close to calling all `no' votes fradulent,
and consequently wasting the UVV's time with spurious complaint. It is
not (generally) the UVV's job to know why someone voted `no'. Get a
grip, already.
> For those of you who just plain don't like Debbie Gibson, I offer this word
> of advice: DON'T VOTE. Let us win or lose on our own merits.
This is also perilously close to suggesting that only people who want
a newsgroup should ever vote on it. Think hard: If it worked like that,
would the ballot even include "No" as a choice?
At best, your position would seem to be that only legitimate `no' votes
are from Gibson fans who don't want a newsgroup. That's not an acceptable
position. (There are lots of people who'll probably vote `no' regardless
if they listen to Debbie Gibson -- those would be the people who insist
there are too many newsgroups already, or don't like *.artists groups in
rec.*, or some other abstract principle). In either case, you are trying
to read voters minds. That usually gets people in trouble around here.
--
Michael Bauser <isla...@msen.com> 42 07 30 N, 83 08 30 W
<URL:http://www.msen.com/~islander> -- Almost presentable!
Finger isla...@msen.com@PublicKey.com for PGP public key.
That's "msen.com", not "msn.com". Never "msn.com". Ever.
Levien de Braal
Michael Bauser <isla...@msen.com> wrote:
>In article <v01510100ac5db7ce21bf@DialupEudora>,
>an...@scott.net (Andrew Vernon) wrote:
>>Also, with regards to a 'no' campaign, I will investigate any
>>failure of the group with the UVV to make sure the 'no' votes are
>>legitimate (ie: not conceived to undermine the success of the group).
>>of advice: DON'T VOTE. Let us win or lose on our own merits.
>are from Gibson fans who don't want a newsgroup. That's not an acceptable
>position. (There are lots of people who'll probably vote `no' regardless
>if they listen to Debbie Gibson -- those would be the people who insist
>there are too many newsgroups already, or don't like *.artists groups in
>rec.*, or some other abstract principle). In either case, you are trying
>to read voters minds. That usually gets people in trouble around here.
His position, IMHO, seems to be that he doesn't think it's fair if people
vote 'no' for the sole reason of hating Debbie Gibson, the persona and the
music. He also warns people that might want to undertake illegal action to
artificially crank up the 'no' count (like voting twice, fake votes, etc...)
Personally, I do agree with both of you in that not liking too many newsgroups,
the *.artists groups in rec.* or some other abstract principle, is a valid
reason for any 'no' vote, and that pure hatred towards the topic of a group
is not a valid reason. I also think that any attempt to separate the two is
doomed from the start... Too bad. We can only ask people to be honest and
fair when voting.
Levien
Peter da Silva
>a newsgroup should ever vote on it.
Unless there's something basically wrong with the proposal (like the name
is confusing or it doesn't match the charter) nobody who's not interested
in the topic should be voting on it.
>Think hard: If it worked like that,
>would the ballot even include "No" as a choice?
The "no" choice was put in to deal with "what if I wanted to create a group
called "rec.sex.michael-bauser".
>At best, your position would seem to be that only legitimate `no' votes
>are from Gibson fans who don't want a newsgroup.
The only legitimate "no" votes are from people who think there's something
about the group that will reduce the overall utility of Usenet.
Now, I agree UVV can't do ANYTHING to filter out spite NO votes, but that
doesn't mean they should be condoned.
Levien de Braal
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <41v5av$m...@gaia.cc.gatech.edu>,
>Levien de Braal <lev...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>music. He also warns people that might want to undertake illegal action to
>>artificially crank up the 'no' count (like voting twice, fake votes, etc...)
>USENET polls?
Funny. Seriously, it is against the rules of Usenet voting to vote twice,
either in favor or against, any newsgroup vote.
(if this weren't the case, expect me to vote 1 billion times in favor...)
Levien
Jim_...@transarc.com
> In article <OciQwUGF...@msen.com>,
> Michael Bauser <isla...@msen.com> wrote:
> >This is also perilously close to suggesting that only people who want
> >a newsgroup should ever vote on it.
>
> Unless there's something basically wrong with the proposal (like the name
> is confusing or it doesn't match the charter) nobody who's not interested
> in the topic should be voting on it.
What about cases where the creation of the new group will effect
existing groups in a way you don't like. For example, suppose someone
wants to create rec.arts.sf.written.asimov and I feel that discussion
of Asimov simply belongs in rec.arts.sf.written (and that it would
hurt rec.arts.sf.written to split out the Asimov discussion to its own
group). I think this is one good reason for voting no.
> The only legitimate "no" votes are from people who think there's something
> about the group that will reduce the overall utility of Usenet.
Yep, and that's wide enough to cover my example above as well
as a number of other things.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Peter da Silva
>pe...@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> In article <OciQwUGF...@msen.com>,
>> Michael Bauser <isla...@msen.com> wrote:
>> >This is also perilously close to suggesting that only people who want
>> >a newsgroup should ever vote on it.
>>
>> Unless there's something basically wrong with the proposal (like the name
>> is confusing or it doesn't match the charter) nobody who's not interested
>> in the topic should be voting on it.
>What about cases where the creation of the new group will effect
>existing groups in a way you don't like.
You mean when you think there's something basically wrong with the proposal?
>> The only legitimate "no" votes are from people who think there's something
>> about the group that will reduce the overall utility of Usenet.
>Yep, and that's wide enough to cover my example above as well
>as a number of other things.
But not to cover "Debbie Gibson doesn't deserve a group" or "I don't like
the person taking the vote" or "There's already a group in alt" or "it'll
kill my mailing list" or "this group is for people I don't like".
Karl Meyer
: The only legitimate "no" votes are from people who think there's something
: about the group that will reduce the overall utility of Usenet.
Considering that every new group added uses up more bandwidth and more system
resources of every machine carrying a full feed of the big seven, I'd say that
it's legitimate to vote no on any group that doesn't look to be well thought
out and likely to serve as a forum for discussion that can't effectively be
held on other groups. In other words, I'll vote no on any group I don't feel
will ADD something significant to the net whether or not I particularly care
about the group because EVERY new group "will reduce the overall utility of
Usenet."
: Now, I agree UVV can't do ANYTHING to filter out spite NO votes, but that
: doesn't mean they should be condoned.
I'll agree here. I don't like seeing voting based on whether the proponent is
liked or not but it at least encourages a bit more politeness on the part of
those who'd like to get a new group passed.
John Stanley
John Stanley
This doesn't make it illegal. Even if it was specified as "against the
'rules'" in the Guidelines.
>(if this weren't the case, expect me to vote 1 billion times in favor...)
Who is going to stop you?
Jan Isley
Andrew Vernon <an...@scott.net> wrote:
>I would agree that BtL is our major support, but I hope the lurkers in the
>alt group who like what they read will come out in support for the rec
>group. Also, with regards to a 'no' campaign, I will investigate any
>failure of the group with the UVV to make sure the 'no' votes are
>legitimate (ie: not conceived to undermine the success of the group).
Really? I don't think so, but thanks for the warning.
>For those of you who just plain don't like Debbie Gibson, I offer this word
>of advice: DON'T VOTE.
...
>I have to take some credit for the rather quiet discussion, since my RFD
>defense quickly squelched any vocal opposition.
A legend in your own mind.
Let me give you some advice. More often votes are lost or canceled
because of excessive campaigning *for* the group. I have seen enough
votes to be certain that a significant number of the no votes that will
be cast in this vote will be done to protest *your* attitude, Andrew.
Reverend Angus
> What is that supposed to mean? I'm pretty sure *all* `no' votes are
> "conceived to undermine the success of the group" -- `no' means that
> the voter doesn't think the group should exist, and that's *all* it
> means. You seem perilously close to calling all `no' votes fradulent,
> and consequently wasting the UVV's time with spurious complaint. It is
> not (generally) the UVV's job to know why someone voted `no'. Get a
> grip, already.
Grip this pal: USENET is highly-prone to ballot-box stuffing, because
there are no poll workers to check voter registrations. If I wanted to, I
could work a little shell/procmail/perl magic that would read news.groups
and vote no in every CFV that came up. And, since I have four unix
accounts, I could drop the scripts on each and have cron jobs do the work
if I didn't like newsgroups or had never found one worth ratifying. BUT--
I don't feel this way and such a automated rejection scheme is against my
ethical system, much like casting malicious votes.
> > For those of you who just plain don't like Debbie Gibson, I offer this word
> > of advice: DON'T VOTE. Let us win or lose on our own merits.
>
> This is also perilously close to suggesting that only people who want
> a newsgroup should ever vote on it. Think hard: If it worked like that,
> would the ballot even include "No" as a choice?
No, you're getting perilously close to delusion.
> At best, your position would seem to be that only legitimate `no' votes
> are from Gibson fans who don't want a newsgroup. That's not an acceptable
> position. (There are lots of people who'll probably vote `no' regardless
> if they listen to Debbie Gibson -- those would be the people who insist
> there are too many newsgroups already, or don't like *.artists groups in
> rec.*, or some other abstract principle). In either case, you are trying
> to read voters minds. That usually gets people in trouble around here.
You don't get it. Let's say you propose a newsgroup, say, rec.widgets.social.
For the purposes of this example, rec.widgets.* is an established and
accepted hierarchy. Now, suppose I come along and say I have 1,000 NO
votes for r.w.s simply because I don't like social widgets. My motives do
not involve the validity of the proposed newsgroup, but rather the fact
that I dislike social widgets. Would it be ethical to rally all those
NO's under these pretenses?
In the same way, would it be ethical to vote or rally a number of votes
against a newsgroup for Debbie Gibson simply because one rather disliked
Ms. Gibson?
My ethical system tells me no in both cases. Even though I dislike
Queensryche, I did not find it necessary to encourage people to vote NO to
rec.music.artists.queensryche. I'm not all that keen on Bruce Springsteen,
but I felt it unnecessary to interfere with the voting for
rec.music.artists.springsteen.
The proposed newsgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson satisfies the
requirements established for new newsgroups, and it would be a credit to
the USENET system. Therefore, any substantial 'NO' campaign would be
suspect, and damaging to the USENET Big Seven's integrity. If we cannot
protect something like USENET from such malice, will our political systems
be next?
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Andrew Vernon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
an...@scott.net | aver...@acca.nmsu.edu
Coming soon to http://www.scott.net/~angus
Deborah Gibson: A Diva for the Rest of Us
George Herbert
Reverend Angus <an...@scott.net> wrote:
Bad Angus. Bad. Followup lines shouldn't be abused that way.
No donuts for you.
>Grip this pal: USENET is highly-prone to ballot-box stuffing, because
>there are no poll workers to check voter registrations.
Untrue, to some extent. The standard voting process includes mailing
an acknowledgement to the voter, and if it bounces then the vote is
usually discarded. So you can't vote people who don't exist,
unless you run a machine somewhere you can create oodles of fake
accounts on, which also will be identified by manual analysis of
the voting patterns and questioned.
You also have problems voting for other people, as they generally
respond to ack's with "I didn't vote on that" if they didn't, so it
is identified.
>The proposed newsgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson satisfies the
>requirements established for new newsgroups, and it would be a credit to
>the USENET system. Therefore, any substantial 'NO' campaign would be
>suspect, and damaging to the USENET Big Seven's integrity. If we cannot
>protect something like USENET from such malice, will our political systems
>be next?
Usenet has already been abused in that manner. There was no good solution;
there are valid reasons to keep "no" votes as an option, so we can't just
do away with them. The solution adopted, by default, was to allow the
system to exist as it does, in a somewhat vulnerable state, and to
subject abusers of the process to as much public shame as is deemed
appropriate by the usenet public as a whole.
-george william herbert
gher...@crl.com
Reverend Angus
> What about cases where the creation of the new group will effect
> existing groups in a way you don't like. For example, suppose someone
> wants to create rec.arts.sf.written.asimov and I feel that discussion
> of Asimov simply belongs in rec.arts.sf.written (and that it would
> hurt rec.arts.sf.written to split out the Asimov discussion to its own
> group). I think this is one good reason for voting no.
I disagree. The trend in USENET is toward smaller, focussed groups. Note
the number of newsgroup splits in recent months. This is because large,
generalized groups are hard to manage and read. In essence,
rec.music.artists.* is a split from rec.music.misc, which has become
polluted with record charts and mailing list announcements. The new media
philosophy is _narrowcasting_, the concept of providing discrete media for
certain topics, so that the individual may assemble his or her own package
of information. The Internet, and USENET by association, is in a unique
position to provide narrowcasts because it is easy and inexpensive to
become an information provider, thus providing a diversity of content
beyond conventional media. Because of that, I have no objection to direct
or indirect logical splits of existing newsgroups to specialize in
specific topics.
Robyn Kozierok
Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>In article <okEnXZ6SM...@transarc.com>, <Jim_...@transarc.com> wrote:
>>> about the group that will reduce the overall utility of Usenet.
>>as a number of other things.
>But not to cover "Debbie Gibson doesn't deserve a group" or "I don't like
>the person taking the vote" or "There's already a group in alt" or "it'll
>kill my mailing list" or "this group is for people I don't like".
I personally think "it'll kill my mailing list" is a legitimate reason to
vote against a group. (But I agree with you about the rest of them.)
--Robyn
Peter da Silva
Robyn Kozierok <ro...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>I personally think "it'll kill my mailing list" is a legitimate reason to
>vote against a group. (But I agree with you about the rest of them.)
Usenet doesn't tell mailing lists how to run themselves. Why should mailing
lists tell Usenet how to run itself?
Peter da Silva
>Peter da Silva (pe...@bonkers.taronga.com) wrote:
>: about the group that will reduce the overall utility of Usenet.
>Considering that every new group added uses up more bandwidth and more system
>resources of every machine carrying a full feed of the big seven,
Nope. *messages* do that, and they do that whether they're in a new group or
an old group. New groups only lead to new traffic if they cover a topic of
discussion that couldn't have been effectively held in other groups.
Reverend Angus
Stanley) wrote:
> >(if this weren't the case, expect me to vote 1 billion times in favor...)
>
> Who is going to stop you?
Easy. Mr. deBraal has ethics to uphold, unlike a lot of people these days.
Reverend Angus
Kozierok) wrote:
> I personally think "it'll kill my mailing list" is a legitimate reason to
> vote against a group. (But I agree with you about the rest of them.)
Well, an alt group (alt.music.chicago) was created that duplicates the
main topic of a mailing list I operate. I'm still waiting to the group to
arrive on my system, but I don't see it as a threat to the mailing list,
simply because not everybody reads news. Most people use the net for mail
and web-- some have never even installed a newsreader on their systems.
In the case of Debbie Gibson, I maintain contact with the list owners and
they have no objections to the newsgroup. In fact, the newsgroup will even
INCREASE their subscriber base, because they offer a three-tier package
including an electronic magazine, newswire, and real-time discussion. The
'alt.fan.debbie.gibson' newsgroup has already provided the list with
numerous new readers. I expect the 'rec' group will open the door for even
more readers, and the list owners are ready for that-- they even have a
domain name in place.
Ken Arromdee
Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>>I personally think "it'll kill my mailing list" is a legitimate reason to
>>vote against a group. (But I agree with you about the rest of them.)
Usenet is not an entity. It can't tell anything how to run itself.
For that matter, nobody on Usenet can "tell" you anything. Even Tale new-
groups can be ignored. Is there something special about the fact that Usenet
does not tell mailing lists what to do, that makes voting due to effects on
lists illegitimate? After all, Usenet doesn't tell newsgroups what to do ei-
ther, but voting on the basis of effects on newsgroups is still legitimate.
>Why should mailing
>lists tell Usenet how to run itself?
Votes are interest polls. Votes cannot "tell" Usenet anything, because they
have no authority. They can only suggest.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
"How can you be so evil, Kayura?"
"The pay is good and there's lots of room for advancement." -Ronin Warriors #34
Russ Allbery
Reverend Angus <an...@scott.net> writes:
> The proposed newsgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson satisfies the
> requirements established for new newsgroups, and it would be a credit to
> the USENET system.
I certainly have no objections, but remember that is your opinion and people
are allowed to have other opinions.
> Therefore, any substantial 'NO' campaign would be suspect, and damaging to
> the USENET Big Seven's integrity.
Given the ballot-stuffing affairs in the past, a simple 'NO' campaign
certainly isn't going to damage any credibility. I think you're borrowing
trouble and being unnecessarily offensive in defense of the group. Why
don't we worry about suspect NO campaigns *after* they happen and make the
productive assumption that everything will be nice and above-board until
proven wrong?
ObNitpick: It's the Big Eight. (humanities got added)
> If we cannot protect something like USENET from such malice, will our
> political systems be next?
A Usenet "vote" is not a vote and Usenet bears no resemblence to a political
system in the sense that you are using the term.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Ken Arromdee
Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>>>>I personally think "it'll kill my mailing list" is a legitimate reason to
>>>>vote against a group. (But I agree with you about the rest of them.)
>>>Usenet doesn't tell mailing lists how to run themselves.
>>Usenet is not an entity. It can't tell anything how to run itself.
>themselves. Satisfied, mister Ken "do you spell anal-retentive with a hyphen"
>Arromdee.
>And you accuse *me* of nitpicking?
This was not so much a nitpick as it was irony: I chose a standard nitpick
and used it on the side of the argument opposite to that on which it usually
appears. I use the "Usenet isn't a democracy" nitpick the same way.
In any case, I used some actual (though unconnected) reasoning immediately
following.
Peter da Silva
>Peter da Silva (pe...@bonkers.taronga.com) wrote:
>: an old group. New groups only lead to new traffic if they cover a topic of
>: discussion that couldn't have been effectively held in other groups.
>If they don't they shouldn't be formed in the first place.
I'm really going to have to be less subtle.
You vote against groups unless "they cover a topic of discussion that couldn't
have been effectively held in other groups" because "they lead to new traffic".
If there's traffic (sans spam), that's evidence that they cover a topic of
discussion that couldn't have been effectively held in other groups. The fact
that they were voted in is evidence that there are enough people interested
in that topic to justify dedicating a group to it.
Except when people start voting NO for bogus reasons and you get people
sending in sympathy YES votes to cover them.
>Also, I chalange you
>to find a group that's ever NOT created more traffic by just being there.
You show me a group that doesn't "cover a topic of discussion that couldn't
have been effectively held in other groups".
See, you have things backwards. Volume isn't going up because people are
creating new groups. People are creating new groups because the volume of
traffic is going up. And the more finely divided the namespace is the better
small sites (the ones who are *really* impacted by the volume) can limit
their feed.
Peter da Silva
Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>In any case, I used some actual (though unconnected) reasoning immediately
>following.
You have a particularly strange definition of "unconnected".
Jan Isley
<C...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>In article <DE3C6...@bonkers.taronga.com>
>pe...@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>But not to cover "Debbie Gibson doesn't deserve a group" or "I don't like
>>the person taking the vote" or "There's already a group in alt" or "it'll
>>kill my mailing list" or "this group is for people I don't like".
Please justify that statement if you can. It is no secret that I think
your misunderstanding of usenet is positively profound. This is just to
good to pass on, Alexander. These most certainly are NOT good reasons
for voting at all.
Andrew Vernon
(Peter da Silva) wrote:
> See, you have things backwards. Volume isn't going up because people are
> creating new groups. People are creating new groups because the volume of
> traffic is going up. And the more finely divided the namespace is the better
> small sites (the ones who are *really* impacted by the volume) can limit
> their feed.
Thank you Peter.
Such namespace partitioning allows system administrators to X a large
number of groups locally, then offer them by request. If a user, or users,
request a group, say, alt.music.artists.debbie-gibson, The admin can edit
his news.groups file to allow that group's traffic onto his/her site.
Groups that are never asked for get turned away at the start of every NNTP
connection that brings incoming news, saving the bandwidth required to
transmit the posts, and the disk space on the receiving machine required
to store them.
If you want a group, all you have to do is ask. It's even possible to put
in a hack that will read mail from users and automagically add the groups
they request. Large systems with T-3 backbones and humongabytes of disk
space can continue to automatically accept all new groups as they do now.
Those with more modest resources can be selective, offering only what
their customers want.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Andrew Vernon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
aver...@baud.com | an...@scott.net
Andrew Vernon
Stanley) wrote:
> >Easy. Mr. deBraal has ethics to uphold, unlike a lot of people these days.
>
> Nonresponsive. Who is going to stop him?
You're being ridiculous. de Braal will stop himself, if you insist on
tweaking semantics.
> Next question: why is it "unethical" to "vote" more than once in a
> USENET poll?
I ascertain from your domain address that you are from North America. In
the United States, and in nearly all democratic societies, Voting more
than once is expressly FORBIDDEN. If you do so, you will face criminal
prosecution.
USENET is not a political entity at all much less a democracy, but the
consortium that evolved from USENET users and sites have still borrowed
from the American political system. This is why we hold elections for new
groups in the Big Eight. And like in any real election, USENET allows each
person to vote only once.
Now, I'm not going to foist my beliefs on you. If your ethical system
allows you to vote more than once, then so be it. The suggestion in your
post that you do, however, will certainly encourage the UVV to keep an eye
on you.
Karl Meyer
: Nope. *messages* do that, and they do that whether they're in a new group or
: an old group. New groups only lead to new traffic if they cover a topic of
: discussion that couldn't have been effectively held in other groups.
f they don't they shouldn't be formed in the first place. Also, I chalange you
to find a group that's ever NOT created more traffic by just being there. Even
more so now with all the spamming going on.
Andrew Vernon
C...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de wrote:
> In article <DE3C6...@bonkers.taronga.com>
> pe...@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> >But not to cover "Debbie Gibson doesn't deserve a group" or "I don't like
> >the person taking the vote" or "There's already a group in alt" or "it'll
> >kill my mailing list" or "this group is for people I don't like".
>
> Each of them an excellent reason to vote "No", indeed.
So, let's see... applying your criteria, I could say that "Germany doesn't
deserve a hierarchy." Or, "why can't all the German-language groups exist
in alt.*?", Or, "it would kill my INFO-DEUTCHLAND mailing list." Then the
clincher: "This hierarchy is for a country and people I don't like."
None of these reasons for denying the de.* hierarchy are valid. I imagine
that anyone who reads the de.* groups would agree. And, just for the
record, Debbie Gibson is half-German, and I have German ancestors as
well. The flaws in Alexander's thinking become apparent when magnify his
argument to the creation of a major hierarchy that will be distributed
thoughout the world.
I hope my point is starting to be seen here.
Peter da Silva
Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>In article <DE4GJ...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
John Stanley
Reverend Angus <an...@scott.net> wrote:
>In article <4202u5$3...@news.orst.edu>, sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John
>Stanley) wrote:
>> Who is going to stop you?
>
>Easy. Mr. deBraal has ethics to uphold, unlike a lot of people these days.
Nonresponsive. Who is going to stop him?
Next question: why is it "unethical" to "vote" more than once in a
USENET poll?
C...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
pe...@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>But not to cover "Debbie Gibson doesn't deserve a group" or "I don't like
>the person taking the vote" or "There's already a group in alt" or "it'll
>kill my mailing list" or "this group is for people I don't like".
Each of them an excellent reason to vote "No", indeed.
c...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Russ Allbery
> USENET is not a political entity at all much less a democracy, but the
> consortium that evolved from USENET users and sites have still borrowed
> from the American political system. This is why we hold elections for new
> groups in the Big Eight. And like in any real election, USENET allows each
> person to vote only once.
Usenet opinion polls are not elections.
Usenet opinion polls are not elections.
Usenet opinion--
>thunk<
Sorry, folks, broken record.
John Stanley
Andrew Vernon <aver...@baud.com> wrote:
>In article <424ug0$6...@news.orst.edu>, sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John
>Stanley) wrote:
>
>> >Easy. Mr. deBraal has ethics to uphold, unlike a lot of people these days.
>>
>> Nonresponsive. Who is going to stop him?
>
>tweaking semantics.
No, he won't. You didn't bother reading what he said. Here:
[Funny. Seriously, it is against the rules of Usenet voting to vote twice,
[either in favor or against, any newsgroup vote.
[(if this weren't the case, expect me to vote 1 billion times in
[favor...)
In other words, if it weren't agains the rules of USENET voting to vote
twice, _expect_ him to vote 1 billion times. Not "I would be inclined
to...", or "I would only be stopped by my personal ethical code..." he
said "expect".
>> Next question: why is it "unethical" to "vote" more than once in a
>> USENET poll?
>
>I ascertain from your domain address that you are from North America. In
>the United States, and in nearly all democratic societies, Voting more
>than once is expressly FORBIDDEN. If you do so, you will face criminal
>prosecution.
I am from North America. I hate to tell you, but the laws regarding
voting in US or state or even city elections DO NOT APPLY to USENET.
Saying that, because it is illegal to vote in a real election more than
once, proves that it is unethical to "vote" in a USENET "election" more
than once is stretching a useless analogy too far. Notice the use of "
marks around key words. That implies that they don't mean what they seem
to. As in, a USENET "vote" isn't the same as a real vote.
>USENET is not a political entity at all much less a democracy, but the
That's right.
>And like in any real election, USENET allows each person to vote only once.
No, actually, USENET _allows_ each person to vote as many times as he
can (in so far as "USENET" allows anything.) Some people who are
involved in USENET "elections" throw out obvious duplicates, and some
try to add rules by writing them into a CFV, but you are allowed to
vote as many times as you want, and you will get as many of those
"votes" counted as are not obvious duplicates.
>Now, I'm not going to foist my beliefs on you.
Your claim that voting twice was unethical is exactly that.
>allows you to vote more than once, then so be it. The suggestion in your
>post that you do, however, will certainly encourage the UVV to keep an eye
>on you.
My suggestion that what? And you don't see a statement such as "expect
me to vote 1 billion times" as a suggestion that someone is going to
vote more than once?
Rob Polinsky
>Next question: why is it "unethical" to "vote" more than once in a
>USENET poll?
Why do you think? Say there's 50 no votes and you vote yes 150 times.
So, the newsgroup is only going to have 1 poster, yourself, when it looks
like 150 people wanted the newsgroup. What a waste.
It is very unethical. I don't know who will stop you, but it is certainly
unethical. It creates a distortion of the truth.
* * * Rob * * * (rap...@psuvm.psu.edu) + Penn State Football
Moderator, women's basketball mailing list + AP: #4 USA Today: #4
RT40 - The Charts! 125 Subscribers! RT#1 "I'll Be There For You"
1991 god --> Craig Patrick, Pittsburgh Penguins <-- 1995 Satan
Rob Polinsky
C...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de says:
>pe...@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>But not to cover "Debbie Gibson doesn't deserve a group" or "I don't like
>>the person taking the vote" or "There's already a group in alt" or "it'll
>>kill my mailing list" or "this group is for people I don't like".
>Each of them an excellent reason to vote "No", indeed.
Agreed, hell, I know of people that have voted for elected officials because
they didn't like the hair style of the opponent. No joke. The above can't
be any worse than this.
>Alexander Eichener
>c...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Peter da Silva
Rob Polinsky <RAP...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>Agreed, hell, I know of people that have voted for elected officials because
>they didn't like the hair style of the opponent. No joke. The above can't
>be any worse than this.
Yeh. I know of people who kill old ladies just to get their rocks off. The
Robyn Kozierok
>>vote against a group. (But I agree with you about the rest of them.)
>Usenet doesn't tell mailing lists how to run themselves. Why should mailing
>lists tell Usenet how to run itself?
It isn't about anyone telling anyone how to run itself, it's simply people
with an interest in not having a newgroup created voting to reflect that
interest. If enough people feel the same way then the group won't be created,
because the community of people interested in the topic prefer it to be
discussed on a mailing list, without a newsgroup available to splinter
discussion.
--Robyn
Jan Isley
I *really* do know people who kill old ladies for kicks. I am a
volunteer chaplain at the second most maximum security state prison
in Georgia, and at the Federal Prison in Atlanta. After a day of
that, the rank amateurs strutting their stuff in news.groups is to
laugh. Tell me again what are good reasons to vote no, Angus.
Jim_...@transarc.com
> In article <1740B13...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,
> C...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de says:
>
> >pe...@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >>But not to cover "Debbie Gibson doesn't deserve a group" or "I don't like
> >>the person taking the vote" or "There's already a group in alt" or "it'll
> >>kill my mailing list" or "this group is for people I don't like".
> >Each of them an excellent reason to vote "No", indeed.
>
> they didn't like the hair style of the opponent. No joke. The above can't
> be any worse than this.
>
There's a big difference between being allowed to vote in a particular
way for stupid reasons and classifying such stupid reasons as
"excellent reasons to vote" that particular way.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Marcio Watanabe
>In article <95244.021...@psuvm.psu.edu>,
>Rob Polinsky <RAP...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <424ug0$6...@news.orst.edu>, sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John
>>Stanley) says:
>>
>>So, the newsgroup is only going to have 1 poster, yourself, when it looks
>>like 150 people wanted the newsgroup. What a waste.
>
>Excuse me, but I would bet offhand that there are more people who post
>to a group than voted yes for it. Considering the volume in some groups,
>and the very low numbers of voters in most votes, it is almost a
>certainty that there are more posters than voters.
But this is obvious in any kind of non-mandatory voting process.
There will always be more people affected by a vote than the number of
voters. What do you think happens during presidential elections in
the united states?! If there are 120 million potential voters, and
only 50 million registered and casted their votes, do you think you
have the right to cast votes for the remaining 70 million that didn't
vote?! Or in another view, do you think that just because less the
half of the potential voters showed up to vote, the elected president
of the united states shouldn't take office because all the potential
voters didn't cast their votes?!
What is unethical is thinking that YOU can speak for the people who
didn't express their opinions.
---
Marcio
_
__ _ ___ _________(_)__ If you had half as much fun reading this
/ ' \/ _ `/ __/ __/ / _ \ as I had writing it
/_/_/_/\_,_/_/ \__/_/\___/ I had twice as much fun as you!! ,,,
(o o)
-- mar...@primenet.com --------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo--
C...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
aver...@baud.com (Andrew Vernon) writes:
>So, let's see... applying your criteria, I could say that "Germany doesn't
>deserve a hierarchy." Or, "why can't all the German-language groups exist
>in alt.*?", Or, "it would kill my INFO-DEUTCHLAND mailing list." Then the
>clincher: "This hierarchy is for a country and people I don't like."
excellent reason. As a hypothetical proponent of a new Germany-related group
(or even, as in your example, a whole hierarchy), I might not be personally
happy about it (just as you would not be happy about anybody daring to
vote "no" on the Debbie Gibson group), but I would strongly support your
_right_ to do so. Of course I would also oppose you in the discussion about
the proposal's merits, but that's normal. Your right to and legitimacy in
voting "no" (both of woch have been insufficiently distinguisged in this
discusson as hitherto) would not be challenged. How could they ?
>I hope my point is starting to be seen here.
this thread mostly coincided with my own stance.
Sincerely, Alexander Eichener c...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
John Stanley
Rob Polinsky <RAP...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <424ug0$6...@news.orst.edu>, sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John
>Stanley) says:
>
>>USENET poll?
>
>Why do you think?
Why I think it is or isn't isn't the question.
>Say there's 50 no votes and you vote yes 150 times.
Ok.
>So, the newsgroup is only going to have 1 poster, yourself, when it looks
>like 150 people wanted the newsgroup. What a waste.
Excuse me, but I would bet offhand that there are more people who post
to a group than voted yes for it. Considering the volume in some groups,
and the very low numbers of voters in most votes, it is almost a
certainty that there are more posters than voters.
>It is very unethical.
Ok, you have now repeated the claim that it is. Why is it?
>I don't know who will stop you, but it is certainly
>unethical. It creates a distortion of the truth.
Ok, then we are to assume that USENET polls are a clear picture of the
truth.
Andrew Vernon
Stanley) wrote:
[Too Much insignificantia]
Oh shut up Stanley. You're just belaboring all of this and creating spam.
You're wasting the very bandwith your views claim to conserve.
Andrew Vernon
<r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Usenet opinion polls are not elections.
>Usenet opinion polls are not elections.
>Usenet opinion--
>>thunk<
If this is the case, why can't I newgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson
right now?
>Sorry, folks, broken record.
Broken head too.
Russ Allbery
>> Usenet opinion polls are not elections.
>> Usenet opinion polls are not elections.
>> Usenet opinion--
>>> thunk<
> If this is the case, why can't I newgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson
> right now?
How does your question have anything to do with my post? You certainly can
newgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson right now; go right ahead. No
one's stopping you. The old system for newsgroups (convincing sysadmins to
carry them) is still available to anyone who wants to use it.
A lot of admins probably wouldn't carry the group since they don't have any
evidence that anyone besides yourself is interested. That's the point of
taking a poll; it shows that over a hundred other people are also
interested. It's certainly not an election.
>> Sorry, folks, broken record.
> Broken head too.
Sorry you didn't find my post amusing. Long ago, I gave up worrying about
whether everyone else gets my jokes. Now I just make them to amuse myself,
and if no one else finds them funny, so be it.
Peter da Silva
Andrew Vernon <aver...@baud.com> wrote:
>If this is the case, why can't I newgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson
>right now?
You haven't established that interest exists by polling the Usenet readership
for potential readers of that group (by running what is unfortunately misnamed
a vote).
Peter da Silva
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>>So, the newsgroup is only going to have 1 poster, yourself, when it looks
>>like 150 people wanted the newsgroup. What a waste.
>Excuse me, but I would bet offhand that there are more people who post
>to a group than voted yes for it. Considering the volume in some groups,
>and the very low numbers of voters in most votes, it is almost a
>certainty that there are more posters than voters.
You're both confused about what these polls are designed to measure.
Readership.
Not volume. not number of posters. Number of *readers*.
Peter da Silva
Robyn Kozierok <ro...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>It isn't about anyone telling anyone how to run itself, it's simply people
>with an interest in not having a newgroup created voting to reflect that
>interest.
The "votes" aren't there to let people express their interest. They're
there to see how many people are interested in a group, and whether the
group fits well into the structure of Usenet. This might seem a fine
distinction but it's an important one.
No doubt Microsoft would have an "interest" in not having UNIX groups
created, and the free software people have an "interest" in not having
Microsoft groups created. That doesn't mean that votes from these groups
would be "legitimate".
Colin Douthwaite
: In article <okEnXZ6SM...@transarc.com>, Jim_...@transarc.com wrote:
:
: > What about cases where the creation of the new group will effect
: > existing groups in a way you don't like. For example, suppose someone
: > wants to create rec.arts.sf.written.asimov and I feel that discussion
: > of Asimov simply belongs in rec.arts.sf.written (and that it would
: > hurt rec.arts.sf.written to split out the Asimov discussion to its own
: > group). I think this is one good reason for voting no.
> I disagree. The trend in USENET is toward smaller, focussed
> groups. Note the number of newsgroup splits in recent months.
> This is because large, generalized groups are hard to manage and read.
This is all a matter of reading preferences.
Many people do favour smaller focussed groups but an equal number of
readers prefer to read a larger broad spectrum group - not a set of
specialised subgroups.
There is, in my view, room for both types of group but it seems that
the narrow-focus specialist group proponents are not willing for
broad spectrum newsgroups to continue to exist. The result of that
intolerance is conflict.
> The Internet, and USENET by association, is in a unique position
> to provide narrowcasts...
> Because of that, I have no objection to direct or indirect logical
> splits of existing newsgroups to specialize in specific topics.
I also have no objection to subgroups of narrowcasts... what I DO
object to is the insistence on simultaneous scrapping of broadcasts
whenever an RFD is proposed for a subgroup.
The Internet, including Usenet, should offer both broadcasts _and_
narrowcasts and leave the choice to users whether they read
narrowly; broadly; a mixture; or not at all.
Usenet may well choose to become Narrownet, I consider that will be
to Usenet's detriment.
Whatever develops we do need to preserve the Broad Spectrum
Newsgroups, if not in Usenet, then perhaps in Altnet or even a new
Broadnet to catch the increasing number of rmgrouped Usenet parent
newsgroups dropped into the Bogus bin.
( BTW trendy modern trends are not intrinsically desirable ! )
Bye,
Andrew Vernon
announce the postponement of any Call For Votes and request that further
discussion concerning this newsgroup be suspended.
I have grown weary from the debate and am gravely dissapointed at the lack
of support from the very audience this newsgroup was intended for. If they
want the newsgroup, they will issue a second RFD for it. I will have no
part of it. Also, I will deny any involvement in further efforts to get
this newsgroup created. I don't care anymore.
However, I encourage all of you to continue the discussion of ethics and
policy regarding newsgroup voting practices. This is valuable to USENET as
it grows increasingly larger by the hour.
Rob Polinsky
>There's a big difference between being allowed to vote in a particular
>way for stupid reasons and classifying such stupid reasons as
>"excellent reasons to vote" that particular way.
I think anyone that votes is "excellent" -- it sure beats apathy.
Some might have strange reasons, but at least they're contributing their
opinion.
Peter da Silva
Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>There is, in my view, room for both types of group but it seems that
>the narrow-focus specialist group proponents are not willing for
>broad spectrum newsgroups to continue to exist. The result of that
>intolerance is conflict.
You mean the broad-focus group are not willing for narrow-focus groups to
exist?
>I also have no objection to subgroups of narrowcasts... what I DO
>object to is the insistence on simultaneous scrapping of broadcasts
>whenever an RFD is proposed for a subgroup.
Sez who? The broadcast group is always included in the proposals that
I've seen.
John Stanley
Wrong answer. He can newgroup it right now. Nobody is stopping him.
It won't be effective, but he can do it.
John Stanley
Marcio Watanabe <mar...@primenet.com> wrote:
>But this is obvious in any kind of non-mandatory voting process.
Good. Then it is obvious that it isn't unethical because it would create a
group with one poster.
One assumption I left unchallenged, of course, is that it is unethical
to create a group with one poster. I would counter that many such groups
exist. They are called "moderated". For example, comp.dcom.telecom.
ncar.weather and rec.arts.startek.info are two others.
>voters. What do you think happens during presidential elections in
>the united states?! If there are 120 million potential voters, and
>only 50 million registered and casted their votes, do you think you
>have the right to cast votes for the remaining 70 million that didn't
>vote?!
The situation is not the same. USENET polls are not US presidential
elections.
>What is unethical is thinking that YOU can speak for the people who
>didn't express their opinions.
There is nothing inherent in voting more than once in a USENET poll that
has anything to do with trying to speak for those who didn't express an
opinion. Unless, of course, you think that voting once expresses an
opinion for those who did not.
John Stanley
No, Peter, I know exactly what "these polls" are designed to measure.
>Not volume. not number of posters. Number of *readers*.
Not "readers". "Users". It is ridiculous to say you are going to measure
the number of readers only, because that would lead you to create groups
whose only posters would be the spammers.
In any case, using a tool for something other than what it was designed
does not make the use unethical, per se.
Peter da Silva
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.oce.orst.edu> wrote:
>In article <DEA0K...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>>You're both confused about what these polls are designed to measure.
>No, Peter, I know exactly what "these polls" are designed to measure.
>>Not volume. not number of posters. Number of *readers*.
>Not "readers". "Users".
"Readers".
>It is ridiculous to say you are going to measure
>the number of readers only, because that would lead you to create groups
>whose only posters would be the spammers.
It certainly could, if people decided they wanted to read a group that nobody
actually wanted to post to. So?
>In any case, using a tool for something other than what it was designed
>does not make the use unethical, per se.
Depends on the tool.
Michael Handler
Andrew Vernon (aver...@baud.com) wrote:
> As proponent for the newsgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson, I hereby
> announce the postponement of any Call For Votes and request that further
> discussion concerning this newsgroup be suspended.
You misspelled "a proponent". Your partner, Richard Evans, has expressed
his interest in continuing the proposal to a vote. So long as he wishes
to do so, the vote will proceed.
Michael Handler <gre...@netaxs.com>
Usenet Volunteer Votetakers [UVV]
Votetaker for rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson
--
Michael Handler <han...@sub-rosa.com> Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV)
Michael Handler
Richard Evans (nep...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> I've asked the UVV votetaker recently assigned for the CFV to advise
> where this leaves us.
Richard, so long as you wish to continue moving the proposal to a vote,
it will continue.
John Stanley
This statement is demonstrably false. Were "readers" the sole criterion
for creating a group, there would be no objection to the distribution of
a CFV to a mailing list.
Yes, a mailing list is a ready-made source of readers. It is trivial to
set up a news->mail gateway which would distribute any postings to an
existing collection of readers. Thus, the real criterion must be more
complex than just "readers".
>>In any case, using a tool for something other than what it was designed
>>does not make the use unethical, per se.
>
>Depends on the tool.
No, it depends on the use.
Russ Allbery
> Many people do favour smaller focussed groups but an equal number of
> readers prefer to read a larger broad spectrum group - not a set of
> specialised subgroups.
> There is, in my view, room for both types of group but it seems that
> the narrow-focus specialist group proponents are not willing for
> broad spectrum newsgroups to continue to exist. The result of that
> intolerance is conflict.
I would rather not get tangled up in this religious argument again, but I do
want to make one suggestion. Colin, if you are able to run nn at your site,
take a look at it. It has the ability to create virtual groups, which means
that you can take all of those narrow-focus groups you don't like and
combine them all into one big group for your newsreader. According to the
opinion poll results on innumerable reorganizations, you're outnumbered in
your preferences, but you can create the Usenet you want inside your own
newsreader anyway.
You also may want to try starting some threads about broad-spectrum issues
in a few .misc groups; you may be surprised how well they work as forums for
those sorts of discussions.
Russ Allbery
> I think anyone that votes is "excellent" -- it sure beats apathy.
> Some might have strange reasons, but at least they're contributing their
> opinion.
I've never quite understood this perspective, either on Usenet or in real
life. If someone votes against a group because they think the proponents
are all flesh-eating aliens from Jupiter who will use the group to attract
small children for strange experiments, I have no problem saying that I'd
rather they didn't participate in the poll. There's a lot of people who
just don't care one way or the other how a group organization turns out.
The purpose of the CFV is to determine if there is sufficient interest in
the group to warrant creating it, and to make sure there aren't a bunch of
people who *don't* want the group created. Votes based on things other than
a desire to read the group or some sort of problem with the name, placement,
or other hierarchical issue (or worries that the group won't have enough
interest) just add noise to the process and don't contribute any meaningful
information.
Similarly in real life, if someone doesn't care enough about the issue to go
research it, apathy certainly does beat casting an uninformed vote.
John Stanley
Thanks, Andrew. You just demonstrated that you cannot prove that voting
more than once is unethical. You did prove you have a rapier wit and
cool way of expressing it.
Here is an ancillary question concerning the issue: is it worth arguing
about something being ethical if you have no way of detecting or
preventing it?
I delayed replying to you so I could set up a test: let's just say, for
the sake of argument, that I voted three times on the
soc.geneology.australia+nz poll. First, find the three. Second,
demonstrate that it was unethical to have done so.
Peter da Silva
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>Here is an ancillary question concerning the issue: is it worth arguing
>about something being ethical if you have no way of detecting or
>preventing it?
You mean like ripping off towels from hotel rooms?
Peter da Silva
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <DEBzI...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>>>Not "readers". "Users".
>>"Readers".
>This statement is demonstrably false.
Only if you're a newbie. This should be well-known to anyone on the net.
>Were "readers" the sole criterion
>for creating a group, there would be no objection to the distribution of
>a CFV to a mailing list.
Sure it is. The issues is to determine whether there are enough people who
will read it over the net to justify creating a worldwide newsgroup instead
of a mailing list. That's why there's a 100 minimum vote requirement rather
than a simple majority.
John Stanley
>John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>>Here is an ancillary question concerning the issue: is it worth arguing
>>about something being ethical if you have no way of detecting or
>>preventing it?
>
>You mean like ripping off towels from hotel rooms?
So, voting more than once in a USENET poll is somehow like stealing
towels from a hotel?
BTW, it is pretty trivial to detect such a theft.
John Stanley
>
>Only if you're a newbie.
Truth depends on how long someone has been on the net?
>This should be well-known to anyone on the net.
Actually, you need to have been around to watch the flames about CFV
having been posted to mailing lists to see that "readers" isn't the only
criterion. It would be "newbies" who would be likely to accept the
"readers" criterion as the sole one.
>The issues is to determine whether there are enough people who
>will read it over the net to justify creating a worldwide newsgroup instead
>of a mailing list.
That's interesting. The people who ramble about making sure that there
will be enough traffic to warrant a group are wrong, then. Those who
complain about empty newsgroups, or little used ones, are wrong, then?
I can pretty much guarantee that there would be 100 people who read
rec.arts.startrek.chakotay.rules. Let's form it today, ok? "Readers" is
the sole criterion, right? How about rec.arts.binaries.erotica? Tons of
readers.
>That's why there's a 100 minimum vote requirement rather
>than a simple majority.
The numbers required for passage do not prove what those numbers are
intended to measure.
Considering the number of people who worry about empty groups, and who
worry about notifying people who would be inclined to be readers of a
group that there is a vote, it seems rather clear that "readers" is not
the only criterion.
Stephen Boursy
>more than once is unethical. You did prove you have a rapier wit and
>cool way of expressing it.
>
Why would it be necessary to prove that voting more than once
is unethical?? A remarkable perspective. I'm aware of past bogus
votes on newsgroup reorgs where anon. posters are allowed to vote--what's
the scoop on this one--was the sham just more open??
>Here is an ancillary question concerning the issue: is it worth arguing
>about something being ethical if you have no way of detecting or
>preventing it?
>
Maybe not arguing something that is obvious--but its important
to discuss it and be mindful of it and aware that a process that
allows for it is not legitimate in the least.
>I delayed replying to you so I could set up a test: let's just say, for
>the sake of argument, that I voted three times on the
>soc.geneology.australia+nz poll. First, find the three. Second,
>demonstrate that it was unethical to have done so.
>
Remarkable perspective!!!
Steve
C...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
>If someone votes against a group because they think the proponents
>are all flesh-eating aliens from Jupiter who will use the group to attract
>small children for strange experiments, I have no problem saying that I'd
>rather they didn't participate in the poll.
If a CFV were issued for a hypothetical group
soc.religion.scientology.advocacy (moderated),
a sizeable numbers of usenet readers/users would probably vote "no" for
reasons quite akin to the one you just ironized.
Would you consider such "no" votes as illegitimate ?
Sincerely, Alexander Eichener
Peter da Silva
<C...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>Fine, let's take an (almost fictional) example from another field.
>If a CFV were issued for a hypothetical group
>soc.religion.scientology.advocacy (moderated),
>a sizeable numbers of usenet readers/users would probably vote "no" for
>reasons quite akin to the one you just ironized.
>Would you consider such "no" votes as illegitimate ?
Yep.
Peter da Silva
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <DECvn...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>>John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>>>Here is an ancillary question concerning the issue: is it worth arguing
>>>about something being ethical if you have no way of detecting or
>>>preventing it?
>>You mean like ripping off towels from hotel rooms?
>So, voting more than once in a USENET poll is somehow like stealing
>towels from a hotel?
If the fact that you can't detect or prevent an action is in any way
relevant it is. You brought it up, you deal with it.
>BTW, it is pretty trivial to detect such a theft.
Sure. You search everyone's bags. You can't just go by whose towels are
missing because people visit each others rooms for perfectly legitimate
reasons.
Peter da Silva
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <DECwF...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>>Only if you're a newbie.
>Truth depends on how long someone has been on the net?
If you'd been on long enough to understand how the Guidelines were created
you wouldn't have come up with such a bogus argument.
>>This should be well-known to anyone on the net.
>Actually, you need to have been around to watch the flames about CFV
>having been posted to mailing lists to see that "readers" isn't the only
>criterion.
You see, but you do not observe.
>>The issues is to determine whether there are enough people who
>>will read it over the net to justify creating a worldwide newsgroup instead
>>of a mailing list.
>That's interesting. The people who ramble about making sure that there
>will be enough traffic to warrant a group are wrong, then.
Yes.
>Those who
>complain about empty newsgroups, or little used ones, are wrong, then?
Yes.
I've said as much enough times, too.
>I can pretty much guarantee that there would be 100 people who read
>rec.arts.startrek.chakotay.rules. Let's form it today, ok?
Prove it by running the vote and getting 100 names.
>"Readers" is
>the sole criterion, right? How about rec.arts.binaries.erotica? Tons of
>readers.
Sure. I wouldn't argue against it, except that the name should be
rec.binaries.erotica
>>That's why there's a 100 minimum vote requirement rather
>>than a simple majority.
>The numbers required for passage do not prove what those numbers are
>intended to measure.
If you had been on the net long enough to know better, you would have known
*why* that requirement was there. Now you do.
>Considering the number of people who worry about empty groups, and who
>worry about notifying people who would be inclined to be readers of a
>group that there is a vote, it seems rather clear that "readers" is not
>the only criterion.
There are lots of confused people. I do my best to bring misunderstandings
like this to their attention.
John Stanley
Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>If you'd been on long enough to understand how the Guidelines were created
>you wouldn't have come up with such a bogus argument.
I have been "on" long enough to understand, Peter. You aren't the only
one who has the Secret Knowledge of USENET.
>You see, but you do not observe.
Of course. A well reasoned argument. Two points for Peter.
>>That's interesting. The people who ramble about making sure that there
>>will be enough traffic to warrant a group are wrong, then.
>
>Yes.
Funny, the seem to be some of the longest "on". But you know better.
Another point for Peter.
>>Those who
>>complain about empty newsgroups, or little used ones, are wrong, then?
>
>Yes.
Another point for Peter.
>>I can pretty much guarantee that there would be 100 people who read
>>rec.arts.startrek.chakotay.rules. Let's form it today, ok?
>
>Prove it by running the vote and getting 100 names.
And if I get 100 yes and 1 no, I still create the group? Or is there
some consideration to creating a group OTHER than just readers?
>Sure. I wouldn't argue against it, except that the name should be
>
> rec.binaries.erotica
No, Peter, there would be 100 readers for the group as I proposed. If
all that matters is "readers", then you don't get to say what the name
should be. There would probably be 100 readers for the group as you want
it, too, so we create both.
>>The numbers required for passage do not prove what those numbers are
>>intended to measure.
>
>If you had been on the net long enough to know better, you would have known
>*why* that requirement was there. Now you do.
Another well reasoned argument. Point for Peter.
>There are lots of confused people. I do my best to bring misunderstandings
>like this to their attention.
Thank you so much.
By the way, exactly what was the reason for the "trial" herarchy, and
just what what the criterion used to determine if a trial group got
created tin USENET? It wasn't "readers", as I recall. But then, Brad
hasn't been around the net long enough to know better, I bet.
Of course, you have neatly avoided the question at hand.
Peter da Silva
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <DEDrp...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>>relevant it is. You brought it up, you deal with it.
>>>BTW, it is pretty trivial to detect such a theft.
>>Sure. You search everyone's bags.
>Right.
That's not trivial.
>>You can't just go by whose towels are
>>missing because people visit each others rooms for perfectly legitimate
>>reasons.
>And remove towels from their rooms without taking them back for
>perfectly valid reasons. Sure.
Sure. "You're billing me for a *towel*? After I had to ask the maid for a
third towel *FIVE TIMES* before she started leaving it? And I had half the
shriner's convention through my suite! You have to be kidding...".
John Stanley
Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>If the fact that you can't detect or prevent an action is in any way
>relevant it is. You brought it up, you deal with it.
>
>>BTW, it is pretty trivial to detect such a theft.
>
>Sure. You search everyone's bags.
Right.
>You can't just go by whose towels are
John Stanley
Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
Cute set of followups.
> Why would it be necessary to prove that voting more than once
>is unethical??
Do you want it accepted as a global concept? If you don't, then it isn't
necessary for you, and you can just ignore this discussion and go back
to calling tale a censor for 'cancelling' groups.
> Maybe not arguing something that is obvious--
Here is the Boursey-proof: it's obvious.
> Remarkable perspective!!!
Thousands of standup comics out of work, and here you are trying to be
funny.
Peter da Silva
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <DEDt3...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>>you wouldn't have come up with such a bogus argument.
>I have been "on" long enough to understand, Peter. You aren't the only
>one who has the Secret Knowledge of USENET.
The origin of the guidelines is hardly secret knowledge. Either you're
uninformed, and I informed you, or you're dissembling.
>>>That's interesting. The people who ramble about making sure that there
>>>will be enough traffic to warrant a group are wrong, then.
>>>Those who
>>>complain about empty newsgroups, or little used ones, are wrong, then?
>>Yes.
>Funny, the seem to be some of the longest "on".
Offhand I can't think of anyone else who follows news.groups that's been on
the net since 1981.
>>>I can pretty much guarantee that there would be 100 people who read
>>>rec.arts.startrek.chakotay.rules. Let's form it today, ok?
>>Prove it by running the vote and getting 100 names.
>And if I get 100 yes and 1 no, I still create the group? Or is there
>some consideration to creating a group OTHER than just readers?
Sure. The name and the charter. Volume and number of posters, which were
the issues at hand remember, are not in any way relevant. We're talking
about what YES votes mean, not NO votes.
The whole issue of putting the interest poll on the same question as the
name and the vote is a separate issue. It's been a mistake since the
beginning.
>No, Peter, there would be 100 readers for the group as I proposed. If
>all that matters is "readers",
Readers rather than posters or volume, yes.
>then you don't get to say what the name
>should be. There would probably be 100 readers for the group as you want
>it, too, so we create both.
100 readers and you can create a group. What the group's called is a
separate issue.
>By the way, exactly what was the reason for the "trial" herarchy, and
>just what what the criterion used to determine if a trial group got
>created tin USENET? It wasn't "readers", as I recall.
Nope. Trial was a botch from the word go. And I said so at the time. Don't
you remember?
>Of course, you have neatly avoided the question at hand.
You obviously have a question in mind other than the one you asked, at least
for this digression.
I answered the one on the subject line days ago, if that's it.
Recap:
It's unethical because a YES vote means something, and what it means isn't
"I like this name" or "I think the people who are proposing this group are
cool" or "I think the people opposing this group are losers."
It means "I believe that creating this group will improve my ability to use
Usenet."
Almost always this means "I will read this group".
It never means "the people opposing this group are losers".
If you're saying "I will read this group" because you think that, you're lying.
that's unethical.
This subthread is simply a response to your claim that that isn't what the
"yes" vote means.
Russ Allbery
> Fine, let's take an (almost fictional) example from another field.
> If a CFV were issued for a hypothetical group
> soc.religion.scientology.advocacy (moderated),
> a sizeable numbers of usenet readers/users would probably vote "no" for
> reasons quite akin to the one you just ironized.
> Would you consider such "no" votes as illegitimate ?
Yes.
Richard Barta
atleast
vote on it all in favor??????
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=
This letter e-mail was made on 98% recycled ions
http:/tcgcs.com/~lonewolf/lonewolf.htm
lone...@tcgcs.com
DGIF#011361 [[ Night0wl ]]
[[[[[[[ NEBRASKA CORNHUSKERS #1 1994 and will do it again in 1995 ]]]]]]]
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\
/
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
/ / /
/ / / ____
/ / / /
/ /___ ___ /___ ___/ Computer Services
-----------------
http://tcgcs.com/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=
-=
John Stanley
>
>That's not trivial.
That was sarcasm.
>Sure. "You're billing me for a *towel*? After I had to ask the maid for a
>third towel *FIVE TIMES* before she started leaving it?
You asked for the extra towels, Sir. We expect you to leave them behind
when you leave. Our not providing you extra towels immediately upon your
request does not make those towels yours to do with as you please.
>And I had half the
>shriner's convention through my suite! You have to be kidding...".
No sir. You are responsible for any guests you invite into your room,
not us. We don't have any record of you calling hotel security to
remove the "Shriner's Convention", so they were, apparently, in your
room at your invitation. I am sure that your friends are all honorable
people, and they will repay you the cost of the towels you claim they
took.
Our honest patrons appreciate our policy of charging for stolen items,
because it keeps our rates low.
Jeez, Peter. You don't equate theft with voting twice. You think voting
twice is something you should't do. You haven't bothered explaining why,
however.
Michael Bauser
aver...@baud.com (Andrew Vernon) wrote:
> In article <qum68jd...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>, Russ Allbery
> <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >Usenet opinion polls are not elections.
>
> If this is the case, why can't I newgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson
> right now?
You *can* newgroup it right now. It just wouldn't *work*.
`Work' meaning `the newgroup is accepted at most sites carrying rec.*',
because most newsadmins haven't been convinced that you're someone who
has a worthwhile opinion. In fact, you're going to great lengths to
*not* convince them of that.
--
Michael Bauser <isla...@msen.com> 42 07 30 N, 83 08 30 W
<URL:http://www.msen.com/~islander> -- Almost presentable!
Finger isla...@msen.com@PublicKey.com for PGP public key.
That's "msen.com", not "msn.com". Never "msn.com". Ever.
John Stanley
>uninformed, and I informed you, or you're dissembling.
Third, and correct, option: I know the origin and you are trying to
avoid answering the question.
>>And if I get 100 yes and 1 no, I still create the group? Or is there
>>some consideration to creating a group OTHER than just readers?
>
>Sure.
Sure I can still create it, or sure there are other considerations? It
better be the former, because you have already told me that there is
nothing but "readers".
>The name and the charter. Volume and number of posters, which were
>the issues at hand remember, are not in any way relevant.
Right. Not in any way. That is why so many people talk about it during
an RFD. "There won't be enough traffic to make the group worthwhile..."
I am sure that someone who has been around as long as you have been has
seen statements such as that.
>We're talking about what YES votes mean, not NO votes.
No, we were talking about why it is unethical to vote twice, whether yes
or no. Maybe you have me confused with someone else?
>100 readers and you can create a group. What the group's called is a
>separate issue.
Not according to the guidelines. And it isn't "100 readers", it is "100
more yes than no and twice as many yes as no". Funny how, if all that
matters is readers, there is even a NO vote option. Even funnier, each
NO cancels two "readers". The guidelines sure don't support your
contentions as to what is required to form a group.
>Recap:
No, not "recap". I went back through the articles in this thread. No,
actually, every article that has bonkers.taronga.com in the message id
and contains the string "ethical" in the Subject. In not a single one
did you say why you think it is unethical.
>It's unethical because a YES vote means something, and what it means isn't
>"I like this name" or "I think the people who are proposing this group are
>cool" or "I think the people opposing this group are losers."
>
>It means "I believe that creating this group will improve my ability to use
>Usenet."
This is an assumption on your part. You want it to mean this, and this
is what you think the original meaning of the vote was, but there is no
limit on who may vote yes or why. You cannot prevent someone for voting
yes because they like the name, because they think the proponents are
"cool", or for any other reason. You can't even know WHY they voted the
way they did after the fact, unless they tell you. You can look at all
the yes votes and think you know why they voted yes, but you are
guessing based on your own assumptions -- which aren't held by everyone
else.
>It never means "the people opposing this group are losers".
You never vote for that reason. The extrapolation to the rest of the
world based on one datapoint is rather tenuous.
>This subthread is simply a response to your claim that that isn't what the
>"yes" vote means.
Excuse me? I didn't make any claims as to what yes votes mean. I made a
statement in an article you replied to that said "I bet there are more
posters than people who voted yes...", but that isn't any claim as to
what a yes vote means or doesn't mean. It is a statement regarding the
numbers of voters (if you read the entire paragraph, you would note that
there was one reference to yes voters and two other references to total
number of voters) but nothing about reasons or meanings of votes.
Now, you have wasted a lot of time lecturing us on what you want yes
votes to mean. That is still not an answer to the question of why it
is unethical to vote more than once.
Brian Edmonds
Andrew> I have grown weary from the debate and am gravely dissapointed
Andrew> at the lack of support from the very audience this newsgroup was
Andrew> intended for.
Interesting. From where I sit the response has seemed reasonably
favourable to the proposal, and I fully expected it to continue to a
vote and pass by a reasonable margin. You must have received a large
amount of negative email, though I can't imagine why.
Unlike alt, where one of the typical measures of popularity is the
volume of supportive postings in alt.config, the Big-8 don't work that
way. Most postings in news.groups are expected to be substantial
arguments either for or against the group. Arguments against the group
should be addressed before the vote, and all the "me too" supportive
posts should be sent by mail in the form of yes votes.
----Nuku-Nuku----UY----KOC----Greenwood---AD-Police----/================
Brian Edmonds (MSc CompSci) aka Jubal@TMI / *Gweep Systems*
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/edmonds ...nuclear / System Consulting
---Depeche-Mode--Dire-Straits--Enya--The-The--NIN---/___inux spoken here
It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. -LL
John Stanley
Bob MacDowell <bob...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Well, if you voted yes all three times, then you skewed the "poll" (since
>"vote" is unfashionable) toward there being more interest in the group
>than there actually is... that could contribute to a too-quiet, or even
>dead, rec group. A la alt.music.sophie-hawkins.
We have already been told, by the authority, that there is no such
thing as a "too-quite" group. It is not important to have posters, just
readers. Since a group with 120,000 readers and no posters would be as
silent as a group with 10 readers and no posters, a "misrepresentation"
in the number of readers which results in a quiet group cannot be
unethical.
>If you voted no all three times, then you skewed the poll the other way,
>again disrepresenting the legitimate interest in the group.
I think you will hear from Peter that "no" votes are not intended to
represent "no interest" in the group, thus extra "no" votes cannot be a
misrepresentation of the legitimate interest in a group.
>If you voted yes twice and no once, then the effect was probably relatively
>inert, which brings the question "why do it?"
I think the current question is "why not?"
>Ah yes, argumentative purposes.
Ah, yes.
Jason Luck
>favourable to the proposal, and I fully expected it to continue to a
>vote and pass by a reasonable margin.
I agree. Lets get this thing passed.
I guess its too late now, but I was hoping it would be moderated.
Jason Luck +---jl...@earth.execpc.com --+ http://execpc.com/~jluck
Milwaukee, WI +--- rdr...@ods.ods.net ----+ Updated 8-28-95
"Time is a vision unclear, blessed with adventure, and full of fear" - DG
**** Vote YES for rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson! ****
******** See news.announce.newgroups and VOTE! ********
Dave Roy
>>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Vernon <aver...@baud.com> writes:
>Andrew> I have grown weary from the debate and am gravely dissapointed
>Andrew> at the lack of support from the very audience this newsgroup was
>Andrew> intended for.
>Interesting. From where I sit the response has seemed reasonably
>favourable to the proposal, and I fully expected it to continue to a
>vote and pass by a reasonable margin. You must have received a large
>amount of negative email, though I can't imagine why.
Have you been reading news.groups? There has been a HUGE discussion
on "no votes" and the ethics of voting. Little did we know the storm
we would be starting. I think, however, that if someone hadn't posted
saying that people who wanted to vote no shouldn't vote, we wouldn't
have this problem.
I, too, am tired of it, mostly because I agree with the opposition in
this ONE case. I don't find anything ethically wrong with voting
against our rec group for Deb. I hope people don't, but there's
nothing inherently wrong with it. If people would just let the vote
happen, there wouldn't be so much flaming.
Please, people. Debate whether or not we should for the group. Don't
debate the ethics of voting. From what I've noticed, news.groups is
already full of that.
>Unlike alt, where one of the typical measures of popularity is the
>volume of supportive postings in alt.config, the Big-8 don't work that
>way. Most postings in news.groups are expected to be substantial
>arguments either for or against the group. Arguments against the group
>should be addressed before the vote, and all the "me too" supportive
>posts should be sent by mail in the form of yes votes.
There haven't been any coherent arguments against the group posted.
There have been the standard "any new group should be voted against
because it will add to the bandwidth usage" and such, but nobody's
come out and said "This is a bad idea, because she doesn't deserve a
group."
*****************************************************************************
* Dave Roy hi...@ix.netcom.com *
* Reality is a crutch for those who can't *
* handle science fiction. *
*****************************************************************************
Marcio Watanabe
>>What is unethical is thinking that YOU can speak for the people who
>>didn't express their opinions.
>
>There is nothing inherent in voting more than once in a USENET poll that
>has anything to do with trying to speak for those who didn't express an
>opinion. Unless, of course, you think that voting once expresses an
>opinion for those who did not.
>
*sigh* You have a really strange logic. this discussion is moot
anyway.
---
Marcio
_
__ _ ___ _________(_)__ If you had half as much fun reading this
/ ' \/ _ `/ __/ __/ / _ \ as I had writing it
/_/_/_/\_,_/_/ \__/_/\___/ I had twice as much fun as you!! ,,,
(o o)
-- mar...@primenet.com --------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo--
Michael Bauser
an...@scott.net (Reverend Angus) wrote:
> In article <OciQwUGF...@msen.com>, isla...@msen.com wrote:
>
> > What is that supposed to mean? I'm pretty sure *all* `no' votes are
> > "conceived to undermine the success of the group" -- `no' means that
> > the voter doesn't think the group should exist, and that's *all* it
> > means. You seem perilously close to calling all `no' votes fradulent,
> > and consequently wasting the UVV's time with spurious complaint. It is
> > not (generally) the UVV's job to know why someone voted `no'. Get a
> > grip, already.
You managed to spew a great deal of noise without ever trying to answer
my questions:
1) Do you consider all `no' votes fradulent?
2) If not, what `no' votes do you consider legitimate?
3) If you don't think `no' votes are legitimate, what *do* you think
the `I vote NO' part of the ballot is for.
You inability to answer even the first question (which has two possible
answers) does not reflect well upon your reasoning abilities.
And your trick with the followups was just plain pathetic.
> Grip this pal: USENET is highly-prone to ballot-box stuffing, because
> there are no poll workers to check voter registrations.
Grip this pal: The UVV *does* check suspicious votes.
> If I wanted to, I
> could work a little shell/procmail/perl magic that would read news.groups
> and vote no in every CFV that came up. And, since I have four unix
> accounts, I could drop the scripts on each and have cron jobs do the work
> if I didn't like newsgroups or had never found one worth ratifying. BUT--
> I don't feel this way and such a automated rejection scheme is against my
> ethical system, much like casting malicious votes.
More importantly, such a system is *against the rules*, which is more
important here than your self-important ethical systems. The system
does not forbid voting `no' for malicious purposes, because it doesn't
ask for the reason a person votes.
> > This is also perilously close to suggesting that only people who want
> > a newsgroup should ever vote on it. Think hard: If it worked like that,
> > would the ballot even include "No" as a choice?
>
> No, you're getting perilously close to delusion.
Which of my delusions would that be? The one about you not being telepathic,
or the one about ballots including a `no' box?
> You don't get it. Let's say you propose a newsgroup, say, rec.widgets.social.
> For the purposes of this example, rec.widgets.* is an established and
> accepted hierarchy. Now, suppose I come along and say I have 1,000 NO
> votes for r.w.s simply because I don't like social widgets. My motives do
> not involve the validity of the proposed newsgroup, but rather the fact
> that I dislike social widgets. Would it be ethical to rally all those
> NO's under these pretenses?
If you rally against my group, it may not be nice, but it's not necessarily
fraud. More importantly, I'm no so blinded by my ego to think that all my
failures are the result of conspiracy and fraud. If a group I proposed
failed, I would probably learn to live with it, because I'm an adult.
> The proposed newsgroup rec.music.artists.debbie-gibson satisfies the
> requirements established for new newsgroups, and it would be a credit to
> the USENET system.
Whether a group "would be a credit to the USENET system" is not what's
at issue here. What's at issue is that you claimed (with neither
qualifiers nor conditionals) that you would investigate "any failure" of
the group proposal for fraud, and I told you that simple failure does
not constitute grounds for such suspicions.
> If we cannot
> protect something like USENET from such malice, will our political systems
> be next?
I actually thought you might be serious until I read that.
Matt Schnierle
>In article <42dat8$s...@news.orst.edu>,
>John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>Thanks, Andrew. You just demonstrated that you cannot prove that voting
>>more than once is unethical. You did prove you have a rapier wit and
>>cool way of expressing it.
>>
>
>votes on newsgroup reorgs where anon. posters are allowed to vote--what's
>the scoop on this one--was the sham just more open??
Proof?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Matt Schnierle py...@oak.grove.iup.edu http://www.ma.iup.edu/~pyld/
The views expressed here are mine--they do not represent those of IUP.
Copyright 1995 by Matt Schnierle. Redistribution on the Microsoft Network
represents a breach of contract, and will result in email from H. Kobrin.
Lynn Diana Gazis
: John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
: >
: >Thanks, Andrew. You just demonstrated that you cannot prove that voting
: >more than once is unethical. You did prove you have a rapier wit and
: >cool way of expressing it.
: >
Why bother proving this? The polls have no point whatsoever if people
are allowed to vote more than once; they then become merely a contest to
see whose software can spam the votetaking software with the most votes.
Not surprisingly, the guidelines disallow it. You can argue that it
should be ethical as long as you like; known multiple votes will continue
to be rejected.
: >Here is an ancillary question concerning the issue: is it worth arguing
: >about something being ethical if you have no way of detecting or
: >preventing it?
: >
You obviously weren't around for the soc.culture.makedonija vote, when
several thousand votes, sent seconds apart and done, evidently, neatly in
alphabetical order by account name, arrived from a certain machine. (It
didn't affect the vote, because there were enough legitimate votes by any
measure to kill the group - but it sure was detectable, and several
thousand votes could certainly swing most Usenet elections.) Obviously,
some duplicate votes will pass undetected from time to time, but one can
at least try to prevent them, and cases of large-scale multiple voting
are likely to be noticeable.
: >I delayed replying to you so I could set up a test: let's just say, for
: >the sake of argument, that I voted three times on the
: >soc.geneology.australia+nz poll. First, find the three. Second,
: >demonstrate that it was unethical to have done so.
: >
Since I don't deeply care whether this group passes or not, I won't
bother examining its results. But I do scan the voting lists for those
groups where I do have an opinion on passage, and would certainly flag
any noticeable multiple votes. If someone gets crafty and manages to
vote twice without my catching it, well, it's only Usenet. They probably
won't be crafty enough to vote enough times to actually swing the
poll without being caught.
Lynn Gazis-Sax (since people in another part of this thread were
mentioning how long they've been on the net, I may as well say that I
have been on since 1982)
Bruce Baugh
sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) wrote:
:That should be rather obvious: when I vote, I do not care how anyone
:else voted or would have voted. Thus, I cannot even begin to speak for
:them.
But that's just the point - we aren't, when we poll, interested in what just
you thinks. That's what your posts are for. The point of the poll is to
establish what each person thinks, _counting each person's interest equally_,
so that we can find out what sentiment at large is.
Self-destructive behavior is a bad thing. In this case, by avowedly violating
the limits that make an interest poll useful, you raise the odds that the
whole thing will be replaced by an autocratic determination. And anyone
willing to seize the power to do that is less likely to have any interests in
common with you than the semi-random sampling of poll respondents. Enlightened
self-interests suggests, therefore, that you're merely screwing yourself over
in the long term.
bruceab@teleport.com____________________http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab
List Manager, Christlib, where Christian & libertarian concerns hang out
Preview S.M. Stirling's novel DRAKON at my home page
"Encrypt! Encrypt! OK! All-One-Key-Steganography-Privacy!
God's law prevents decryption above 1042 bytes! Exceptions? None!"
John Stanley
Bruce Baugh <bru...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <42ndat$f...@news.orst.edu>,
> sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) wrote:
>
>:That should be rather obvious: when I vote, I do not care how anyone
>:else voted or would have voted. Thus, I cannot even begin to speak for
>:them.
>
>But that's just the point - we aren't, when we poll, interested in what just
>you thinks. That's what your posts are for. The point of the poll is to
>establish what each person thinks,
No, it isn't. What each person thinks can only be expressed the same way
you say I must express what I think: by posting. All you get from the
poll is "yes" or "no", but you don't even begin to get why they
responded yes or no.
>_counting each person's interest equally_,
USENET is not a democracy, and each person's interest is not equal. It's
nice to pretend it is, but that's just pretend.
>Self-destructive behavior is a bad thing.
Of course. So is robbing a bank.
>In this case, by avowedly violating
>the limits that make an interest poll useful,
Excuse me?
>Enlightened
>self-interests suggests, therefore, that you're merely screwing yourself over
>in the long term.
Enlightened self interest suggests that I act in a way that will cause
the creation of newsgroups I am interested in and prevent the formation
of ones I have no interest in (not just ignore them). It also suggests
that I not do this in an avowed manner.
Peter da Silva
>USENET is not a democracy, and each person's interest is not equal.
Usenet is not a democracy, but in order to gauge interest in a group you
need to *at least* count each person's interest equally.
>>In this case, by avowedly violating the limits that make an interest poll
>>useful,
>Excuse me?
He means, you know, having an interest poll that actually comes close to
representing the proportion of readers interested in the group. Which is
as useful as the poll gets...
Lynn Diana Gazis
: >The polls have no point whatsoever if people are allowed to vote more
: >than once;
: Is this an attempt at proving it?
Nothing so profound. To attempt to prove whether voting twice is
*ethical*, we'd have to discuss whether we agree on basic ethical
assumptions. E.g., whether you prefer a Kantian model, a utilitarian,
etc. I merely state that I consider a poll with multiple votes stupid,
would never allow such a system were I the vote taker, and would not
consider the results worth heeding as a system administrator.
: >Not surprisingly, the guidelines disallow it.
: Please read the guidelines. You might be surprised. I have pointed out
: more than once that the guidelines do not prohibit multiple votes from
: the same person. They still don't contain such a prohibition, if the
: Ohio State Web version of the guidelines are up-to-date.
Fine, I assumed that the statements earlier in the thread that the
guidlines disallowed it were true. It is certainly the *practice* that
has been followed in the votes I've observed over the years. I confess,
though, that I haven't actually read the guidelines since I last had to
(last summer, when I acted as proponent for the misc.kids
reorganization), so, it's possible that they contain such a loophole. If
so, it should be fixed promptly. In the meantime, the guidelines
certainly don't say that the votetakers have to *allow* multiple votes,
so there is no reason CFVs can't announce that such votes will be rejected.
: >You obviously weren't around for the soc.culture.makedonija vote, when
: Statements of the form "it's obvious" are usually wrong. This is one
: example. And, if you had been around for as long as you claim to have
: been, you would know it was wrong.
So, it is impossible that someone who has been on the net for thirteen
years wouldn't remember you? You are, perhaps, as famous as Gene
Spafford? Or as infamous as Serdar Argic? Oh, why even bother arguing
with someone who accuses me of lying because I don't remember his posts?
We were, I suppose, on different newsgroups, or read different threads,
or you didn't say anything I found worth remembering. Run into me again
a few years from now, and I may well have forgotten your posts in this
thread. Or at least forgotten the name of the person who posted them. I
could list disputes from years in the past which I *do* remember, but
that would add too much digression to the thread.
: >measure to kill the group - but it sure was detectable, and several
: >thousand votes could certainly swing most Usenet elections.) Obviously,
: "More than once" has once again grown to "thousands of votes".
We should, perhaps, allow each person up to five votes, but no more?
It's much simpler to allow only one vote per person than to try to come
up with a standard for determining exactly how many votes a person should
be allowed. And also makes for less spam for the votetakers' computers.
This is my last post to this thread. I don't care to carry on a long
discussion with someone who frivolously accuses me of lying.
Lynn Gazis-Sax
John Stanley
>>>useful,
>
>>Excuse me?
>
>He means, you know, having an interest poll that actually comes close to
>representing the proportion of readers interested in the group. Which is
>as useful as the poll gets...
If you had read carefully, you would have noted that I quoted, and
replied to, only the clause in his statement which talked about
"avowedly violating the limits". It was that ridiculous interpretation
that I was responding "excuse me" to, as in, you know, "excuse me, but
maybe you should read what was written instead of making it up as you
go along."
Jonathan Jones
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <95244.021...@psuvm.psu.edu>,
>Rob Polinsky <RAP...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <424ug0$6...@news.orst.edu>, sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John
>>Stanley) says:
>>
>>>Next question: why is it "unethical" to "vote" more than once in a
>>>USENET poll?
>>
>>Why do you think?
>
>Why I think it is or isn't isn't the question.
With great trepidation I shall enter this minefield...
John Stanley's original request was for an answer to the question 'why
is it "unethical" to "vote" more than once in a USENET poll?'.
(Unfortunately this article has expired here which is why I am starting
my followup here.) Please note that John expressed no opinion as to
whether or not it was unethical, he simply requested clarification.
Unfortunately most respondents haven't even attempted to answer his
question, choosing instead to accuse him of all sorts of things.
It's not clear to me what such a proof would consist in, since John hasn't
sufficiently defined what he means by "ethical", so as it stands it
is very hard to answer his question.
Here's a question for you John:
Suppose I freely and voluntarily decide to join in a game which is being
run by some person. Suppose the rules of the game are clearly and
publicly stated, and that I am aware of their content. Is it then
"ethical" for me to try to alter the outcome of the game by the use
of methods which contravene the rules?
Please note that am I not asking you to what extent, if any, this
situation resembles a USENET poll. I'm just trying to clarify your
general position.
Jonathan
John Stanley
Jonathan Jones <jaj...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>It's not clear to me what such a proof would consist in, since John hasn't
>sufficiently defined what he means by "ethical", so as it stands it
>is very hard to answer his question.
It was left deliberately open so people could provide their own
answers.
>Here's a question for you John:
>
>Suppose I freely and voluntarily decide to join in a game which is being
>run by some person. Suppose the rules of the game are clearly and
>publicly stated, and that I am aware of their content.
Please note that the "one person one vote" rule is not clearly and
publicly stated. No such rule exists. Votetakers have said it does,
but votetakers don't get to make up the rules as they go along.
Well, actually, they do make up some of the rules as they go along, and
people go along with that, but in a properly run system, they would
count the votes and not make the rules for who can vote using which
software.
>Please note that am I not asking you to what extent, if any, this
>situation resembles a USENET poll. I'm just trying to clarify your
>general position.
Were there such a clear rule written, then no, voting more than once
would be unethical. This is, perhaps, why I have previously suggested
that this apparently Very Important Rule be written down in the
Guidelines. Others have not felt the rule was important enough to write
down.
Jonathan Jones
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <4397h7$q...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
>Jonathan Jones <jaj...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>It's not clear to me what such a proof would consist in, since John hasn't
>>sufficiently defined what he means by "ethical", so as it stands it
>>is very hard to answer his question.
>
>It was left deliberately open so people could provide their own
>answers.
Fair enough. I'm just trying to tease out your answer.
Since you didn't answer my question in the way I asked (your right, of
course), perhaps I could summarise what I think your response was:
'In the situation described, attempting to modify the result by means
contrary to the clearly stated rules in indeed "unethical". This
situation, however, does not correspond to a USENET poll, as in that
case the particular rule under discussion (not voting more than once)
is not clearly and publicly stated.
If the rule were to be included in the guidelines, that would count as a
clear and public statement, and then it would be "unethical" to vote more
than once.
Therefore the guidelines should be modified to include this rule.'
Have I got this right? If so we can argue from here. If not, I would
be grateful for clarification.
Jonathan