RFD: rec.games.video.microsoft
arro...@rahul.net
unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.games.video.microsoft.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.
Newsgroups line:
rec.games.video.microsoft The Microsoft Xbox and successor systems.
RATIONALE: rec.games.video.microsoft
The Microsoft Xbox will be released in late 2001. There is
currently no Big 8 newsgroup where this game system can be discussed
separately, although there are newsgroups for Nintendo and Sony.
According to Google, for the one week period 10/25/01-10/31/01, the
group alt.games.video.xbox contained about 2110 posts, or around 300
new messages per day, demonstrating a high traffic level even prior
to the system's release.
END RATIONALE.
CHARTER: rec.games.video.microsoft
This newsgroup is for discussion of the Microsoft Xbox console
game system (and any future game systems produced by Microsoft
Corporation) and their games. Discussion of PC games produced
by Microsoft (except as they relate to consoles) belongs in an
appropriate PC games group; non-game related discussion of Microsoft
business practices and Microsoft operating systems belongs in an
appropriate comp.* group.
Binaries, including copies of games, are prohibited, except for
small binaries such as PGP signatures.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this
phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed
newsgroups should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will
continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD
for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which
a Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by a neutral vote taker.
Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to
these documents if you have any questions about the process.
END PROCEDURE.
DISTRIBUTION: rec.games.video.microsoft
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
rec.games.video.misc
alt.games.video.xbox
Proponent: Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net>
ru.ig...@usask.ca
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft
>Newsgroups line:
>rec.games.video.microsoft The Microsoft Xbox and successor systems.
>RATIONALE: rec.games.video.microsoft
Is the following sentence necessary? By the time the CFV roles
around it may already be out, and the paragraph really ought to
start out with an explanation of the topic space. Perhaps move
it to, and combine it with the last phrase in the last sentence
below (also making that a sentence of it's own).
>The Microsoft Xbox will be released in late 2001.
Or perhaps instead, an explanation that starts like,
"M$ will/has entered the console game market with the XBox..."
would be a better introductory statement.
In your sentence below, why mention newsgroups for Nintendo and
Sony?
>There is
>currently no Big 8 newsgroup where this game system can be discussed
>separately,
>although there are newsgroups for Nintendo and Sony.
^
Snip this last phrase and tack on:
"however, there is a newsgroup, alt.games.video.xbox where there
is a lot of discussion."
>According to Google, for the one week period 10/25/01-10/31/01, the
>group alt.games.video.xbox contained about 2110 posts, or around 300
>new messages per day, demonstrating a high traffic level even prior
>to the system's release.
Then add your Sony etc remark here,
"This newsgroup would be the M$ analog of the existing
rec.games.video.nintendo and rec.games.video.sony newsgroups
for Nintendo and Sony console game systems."
The one thing about the traffic levels that bothers me is that this
is just anticipatory traffic. What usually happens to discussion
level of a single console after release?
>END RATIONALE.
>CHARTER: rec.games.video.microsoft
>This newsgroup is for discussion of the Microsoft Xbox console
^unmoderated
>game system (and any future game systems produced by Microsoft
>Corporation) and their games.
Why is "and any future... Corporation" in ()? If anything, shouldn't
it be the other way around? I would rather suggest
"for discussion of game systems produced by Microsoft Corporation,
like the Xbox console game system."
That makes the charter more general while still making notice of
the first M$ console system.
>Discussion of PC games produced
>by Microsoft (except as they relate to consoles) belongs in an
>appropriate PC games group; non-game related discussion of Microsoft
>business practices and Microsoft operating systems belongs in an
>appropriate comp.* group.
>Binaries, including copies of games, are prohibited, except for
>small binaries such as PGP signatures.
Any concerns over commercial postings? For Sale/Trade/Auction
postings?
>END CHARTER.
ru
--
My (updated) standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Jordan Lund
wrote on 11/12/01 9:36 AM:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft
Sounds reasonable enough to me. I don't know why it shouldn't be considered
in the same pantheon as all the other rec.games.video (insert hardware of
choice here.)
- Jordan
lu...@earthlink.net
********************************************************************
* "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... *
* and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived..." *
* - Henry David Thoreau, from "Walden" *
********************************************************************
Jim Riley
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft
>Newsgroups line:
>rec.games.video.microsoft The Microsoft Xbox and successor systems.
Have you held a straw poll on the name? I notice the existing alt.*
group and the prospective uk.* group use xbox rather than microsoft.
--
Jim Riley
Adam H. Kerman
>RATIONALE: rec.games.video.microsoft
>The Microsoft Xbox will be released in late 2001. There is
>currently no Big 8 newsgroup where this game system can be discussed
>separately, although there are newsgroups for Nintendo and Sony.
>According to Google, for the one week period 10/25/01-10/31/01, the
>group alt.games.video.xbox contained about 2110 posts, or around 300
>new messages per day, demonstrating a high traffic level even prior
>to the system's release.
>END RATIONALE.
Sounds like alt.games.video.xbox has decent traffic. It's been around for
16 months. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, there's also
microsoft.public.au.xbox
microsoft.public.ca.xbox
microsoft.public.de.xbox
microsoft.public.es.xbox
microsoft.public.fr.xbox
microsoft.public.it.xbox
microsoft.public.nz.xbox
microsoft.public.pt.xbox
microsoft.public.xbox
microsoft.public.xbox.amped
microsoft.public.xbox.azurik
microsoft.public.xbox.bloodwake
microsoft.public.xbox.doa3
microsoft.public.xbox.fuzionfrenzy
microsoft.public.xbox.games
microsoft.public.xbox.halo
microsoft.public.xbox.munchsoddysee
microsoft.public.xbox.nflfever2002
microsoft.public.xbox.nightcaster
microsoft.public.xbox.projectgothamracing
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Sounds like alt.games.video.xbox has decent traffic. It's been around for
>>16 months. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, there's also
>>microsoft.public.au.xbox
>...
>Geez.
>*This* is why people think that group proponents always get a hard time.
>Because they do.
>"We already have plenty of non-Big-8 groups for it" is *not* an excuse not
>to create a group in the Big 8.
Of course it is. The group you propose fills no need. Unless the users of the
alt.* group favor the Big 8 group, you'd be "giving them a hard time".
Did you ask? What would motivate them to vote for a redundant group if they
are satisfied with the existing group?
How did you not notice the 20 xbox groups in the microsoft.* hierarchy?
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> Ken Arromdee <arro...@yellow.rahul.net> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Sounds like alt.games.video.xbox has decent traffic. It's been around for
> >>16 months. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, there's also
>
> >>microsoft.public.au.xbox
> >...
>
> >Geez.
>
> >*This* is why people think that group proponents always get a hard time.
> >Because they do.
>
> >"We already have plenty of non-Big-8 groups for it" is *not* an excuse not
> >to create a group in the Big 8.
>
> Of course it is. The group you propose fills no need. Unless the users of the
> alt.* group favor the Big 8 group, you'd be "giving them a hard time".
Though it is becoming less of an issue AFAIK, alt.* does not get
proporgated as well as Big-8 groups. The topic is widely discussed in
alt.* and there already is some some discussion in some Big-8 groups.
>
> Did you ask? What would motivate them to vote for a redundant group if they
> are satisfied with the existing group?
Well the pre-RFD was for the most part cross posted to the existing
alt.* group. I saw no concerns expressed from that group. Some
groupies were concerned about the name space.
>
> How did you not notice the 20 xbox groups in the microsoft.* hierarchy?
microsoft.* is less proporgated then alt.*, I during the pre-RFD looked
at the groups my NSP carries. I cound not find one m.*.xbox available
to me.
I also in groups have from time to time seen a circular ptoblem occur.
I have seen a proposal put forward for a discussed topic that appears to
be low traffic and the proponents adived to make an alt.* until traffic
grows or fails to grow.
Should the alt.* traffic grow to be a topic of interest wotld wide and
has good traffic and they return with a Big-8 proposal they sometimes
gets hit with why make a Big-8 group when there is already the alt.*
group.
I have no problem with a Big-8 group being formed for this topic. Still
not thrilled with the naming convention that is used beciused it
certainly confused me. However precedent does lend to the name space
sought. I will of course say precedent is not always good, however
there should be a good reason to set a new precedent. It might be time
now or it might happen 5 years from now.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Kevin McGuire
: CHARTER: rec.games.video.microsoft
: This newsgroup is for discussion of the Microsoft Xbox console
: game system (and any future game systems produced by Microsoft
: Corporation) and their games. Discussion of PC games produced
: by Microsoft (except as they relate to consoles) belongs in an
: appropriate PC games group; non-game related discussion of Microsoft
: business practices and Microsoft operating systems belongs in an
: appropriate comp.* group.
Overall, I think this is a very good proposal. One suggestion - would it
be appropriate to be a bit more explicit when describing the "appropriate
PC games group"? (and should that be group_s_?) Something along the
lines of:
Discussion of PC games produced by Microsoft (except as they relate to
consoles) belongs in an appropriate PC games group (for example,
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.*); ...
This would give the people who read the charter a bit more of a hint as
to where they can take part in a discussion of M$'s PC games.
--
Kevin McGuire University of Pennsylvania
Brian Mailman
>
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > ...What would motivate [the users of the alt.* group] to vote for a
> > redundant group if they are satisfied with the existing group?
(snip)
> Well the pre-RFD was for the most part cross posted to the existing
> alt.* group. I saw no concerns expressed from that group.
No support, either.
> I have no problem with a Big-8 group being formed for this topic. Still
> not thrilled with the naming convention that is used...
Not at all.
B/
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Ken Arromdee <arro...@yellow.rahul.net> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>>"We already have plenty of non-Big-8 groups for it" is *not* an excuse not
>>>to create a group in the Big 8.
>>Of course it is. The group you propose fills no need. Unless the users of the
>>alt.* group favor the Big 8 group, you'd be "giving them a hard time".
>Though it is becoming less of an issue AFAIK, alt.* does not get
>proporgated as well as Big-8 groups. The topic is widely discussed in
>alt.* and there already is some some discussion in some Big-8 groups.
At the moment, the alt.* group is successful. If Ken can ask for votes, he can
sooner ask people to request creation of the group if they wish to use it.
>>Did you ask? What would motivate them to vote for a redundant group if they
>>are satisfied with the existing group?
>Well the pre-RFD was for the most part cross posted to the existing
>alt.* group. I saw no concerns expressed from that group.
You saw Ken being ignored loudly; the vote will likely fail.
>>How did you not notice the 20 xbox groups in the microsoft.* hierarchy?
>microsoft.* is less proporgated then alt.*,
In theory, one is supposed to connect to the Microsoft server. It's
propogated to Usenet in an unconventional manner, via another server.
Furthermore, Microsoft refuses to provide a definitive checkgroups; there might
be more than 20 groups!
>I during the pre-RFD looked at the groups my NSP carries. I cound not
>find one m.*.xbox available to me.
Did you request that they create microsoft.* groups?
>I also in groups have from time to time seen a circular ptoblem occur.
>I have seen a proposal put forward for a discussed topic that appears to
>be low traffic and the proponents adived to make an alt.* until traffic
>grows or fails to grow.
This advice sucks. alt.* isn't a practice hierarchy. If there's a need for a
new group, sometimes a Big 8 group is better, but sometimes an alt. group is
better. It depends on the topic and what comparable groups are named.
>Should the alt.* traffic grow to be a topic of interest wotld wide and
>has good traffic and they return with a Big-8 proposal they sometimes
>gets hit with why make a Big-8 group when there is already the alt.*
>group.
If the proposed group duplicates an existing group, there's no need for it.
>I have no problem with a Big-8 group being formed for this topic.
Why go against the interests of the existing users?
Jay Denebeim
Ken Arromdee <arro...@yellow.rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <3BF3F8E1...@sfo.com>,
>Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>> Well the pre-RFD was for the most part cross posted to the existing
>>> alt.* group. I saw no concerns expressed from that group.
>>No support, either.
>Does it need any? We both know that this group, if created, is
>guaranteed to get huge, huge, amounts of traffic.
Sure, you need at least 120 supporters who are willing to vote for the
group.
Jay
--
I'm looking for a job, for my resume please see:
http://www.deepthot.org:2001/denebeim.html
Ralf Haring
wrote:
>In article <9t26ou$leg$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
>Ken Arromdee <arro...@yellow.rahul.net> wrote:
>>In article <3BF3F8E1...@sfo.com>,
>>Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Well the pre-RFD was for the most part cross posted to the existing
>>>> alt.* group. I saw no concerns expressed from that group.
>>>No support, either.
>
>>Does it need any? We both know that this group, if created, is
>>guaranteed to get huge, huge, amounts of traffic.
>
>Sure, you need at least 120 supporters who are willing to vote for the
>group.
"Does it need any [from the alt.* group]?"
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
Adam H. Kerman
>Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>>Well the pre-RFD was for the most part cross posted to the existing
>>>alt.* group. I saw no concerns expressed from that group.
>>No support, either.
>Does it need any?
Not if you don't care to win the vote.
>We both know that this group, if created, is guaranteed to get huge, huge,
>amounts of traffic.
Damn! I forgot to set followups to alt.config.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Does it need any [from the alt.* group]?"
Perhaps he could get it from the 20 or so microsoft.* groups.
Jay Denebeim
Ralf Haring <ra...@duke.edu> wrote:
>On 16 Nov 2001 05:37:40 GMT, dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim)
>wrote:
>>Sure, you need at least 120 supporters who are willing to vote for the
>>group.
>
>"Does it need any [from the alt.* group]?"
He needs them from somewhere. Presumably he already has them. He
knows enough not to put an RFD through that doesn't have enough
support.
Kevin McGuire
: In article <3BF3F8E1...@sfo.com>,
: Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
: >> alt.* group. I saw no concerns expressed from that group.
: >No support, either.
: Does it need any? We both know that this group, if created, is guaranteed
: to get huge, huge, amounts of traffic.
Does it make sense to crosspost the RFD/CFV to the other
rec.games.video.* groups, since they (and rec.games.video.sony in
particular) are getting quite a bit of xbox discussion?
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> In article <9tef5r$ick$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
> Kevin McGuire <Kevin McGuire kevinmcg...@sas.upenn.eduNOSPAMNO> wrote:
> >Does it make sense to crosspost the RFD/CFV to the other
> >rec.games.video.* groups, since they (and rec.games.video.sony in
> >particular) are getting quite a bit of xbox discussion?
>
> to do to make that kind of change.
The RFD can be freely reposted and/or pointers sent to interested news
groups. The CFV can not be redistributed, though neutral pointers can
be sent to related groups. The G5 might be a problem if you wish to
send the CFV to many groups, though how many might not see it is yet to
be determined (I did not see some "excessive" cross posted RFDs,
however most other groupies appeared to have seen them). As for the CFV
that should be handled though the PQ and UUV procedure, I do not believe
a new RFD is required to add a few groups to recieve the CFV or
pointers.
I do not know if you plan a 2nd RFD, there though was raised some
concern about language used in sections of the first, including the
charter. If there are not major changes to be made a second RFD is not
required the changes can be made in the CFV. "Examples of major changes
include any change to a group's name or moderation status or a
significant alteration to the charter. Examples of minor changes not
requiring an additional RFD include the addition or removal of a
proponent or tidying up some wording in the rationale or charter. "
Ms. Roxxi
lost. i can't figure it out. could you help me?
please write back.
leslie
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>hey i was wondering how you you got the RFD form? I wanted to make one and im
>lost. i can't figure it out. could you help me?
I'm assuming you are looking towards a Big-8 newsgruop
(rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, misc.*, news.*, comp.*, humanities.*, talk.*).
Go to: http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
and check out "How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal".
If you haven't already done so, read the other documents
listed with it. Finally, read about 6 months worth of
postings from news.groups (there are all sorts of things
you simply won't find in any document).
Oh yeah, consider what my sig says.
OTOH, if you are thinking about an alt.* group, the procedure
is quite different and the RFD form is irrelevant. The link
I gave has info on that, too.
Kathy I. Morgan
> Newsgroups line:
> rec.games.video.microsoft The Microsoft Xbox and successor systems.
There has been very little discussion of this proposal since it became
formal. Much of the pre-RFD discussion suggested the name was poor. I
think it's awful, and would much rather see
rec.games.video.microsoft.x-box or other variation that includes x-box
in the name. I disagree with the proponent's determination to name this
group strictly in parallel with the existing naming convention in this
particular subhierarchy--MS is _not_ like the other game consoles
because it has video games which are not X-Box/console games.
I believe if the group is created, it will attract many MS non-console
video-game discussion that will be offtopic. This could lead to a lot
of netcopping and flames about the off topic nature of those posts, and
it could hurt the groups which should have received that traffic.
Enthusiastic posters who get flamed out of the first group they try may
not ever come back to Usenet.
Assuming a votetaker volunteers for this vote, is that legitimate
grounds for voting NO on technical grounds because it's a bad name? I
don't expect to use this group or any other MS games group, so I won't
directly be affected, but I do think it's harmful to Usenet.
I guess I'll be voting NO, unless people can persuade me that I'm
mistaken in believing the value of naming in accordance with a naming
precedence within that hierarchy is outweighed by the disadvantages of
this particular name.
--
Kathy
visit news:news.groups.reviews to read reviews of other newsgroups
help for new users of newsgroups at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
Jay Denebeim
Kathy I. Morgan <kmo...@aptalaska.net> wrote:
><arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>> Newsgroups line:
>> rec.games.video.microsoft The Microsoft Xbox and successor systems.
>Assuming a votetaker volunteers for this vote, is that legitimate
>grounds for voting NO on technical grounds because it's a bad name?
Sure.
However I agree with Ken on this issue (amazingly enough) and I think
the hierarchy naming structure is fine the way it is. I understand
others disagree. The thing is though, Ken is the proponant and he
gets to call the shots naming wise.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Assuming a votetaker volunteers for this vote, is that legitimate
>grounds for voting NO on technical grounds because it's a bad name? I
>don't expect to use this group or any other MS games group, so I won't
>directly be affected, but I do think it's harmful to Usenet.
>I guess I'll be voting NO, unless people can persuade me that I'm
>mistaken in believing the value of naming in accordance with a naming
>precedence within that hierarchy is outweighed by the disadvantages of
>this particular name.
I think you should vote NO on that basis. No objections from
me. I disagree with your objection, but I do agree with the
basis of your vote. I think I'll either be abstaining or not
voting at all on the same basis.
Jim Riley
Morgan) wrote:
><arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>> Newsgroups line:
>> rec.games.video.microsoft The Microsoft Xbox and successor systems.
>
>There has been very little discussion of this proposal since it became
>formal. Much of the pre-RFD discussion suggested the name was poor. I
>think it's awful, and would much rather see
>rec.games.video.microsoft.x-box or other variation that includes x-box
>in the name. I disagree with the proponent's determination to name this
>group strictly in parallel with the existing naming convention in this
>particular subhierarchy--MS is _not_ like the other game consoles
>because it has video games which are not X-Box/console games.
Would a votetaker be willing to permit a choice of names in the CFV?
Would the moderator of news.announce.newgroups post such a CFV?
Would the proponent support such a choice?
--
Jim Riley
ba...@dmcom.net
<snip>
>
> If a bad name for a group is "harmful to Usenet", any reason for voting against
> a group can be justified on the basis of harm to Usenet.
A bad name space is considered a valid reason to vote NO.
It does no follow any reason thus becomes valid <sighes>
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> Would a votetaker be willing to permit a choice of names in the CFV?
Yes vote takers certainly can accept the option. The Last RFD is what a
UVV considers before stepping forward to voluntee.
>
> Would the moderator of news.announce.newgroups post such a CFV?
In the past, though rare event, such has been permitted. So the answer
is maybe.
>
> Would the proponent support such a choice?
The proponent has indicated no willingness to discuss altetnitive names
and has sibbitted the PQ, I suspect the answer is No, but can not
speak for the proponent.
>
> --
> Jim Riley
Kathy I. Morgan
If such a vote were conducted, I'd be very happy to abstain and leave it
to all the voters who would be using the group to select the name.
Aahz Maruch
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>Would a votetaker be willing to permit a choice of names in the CFV?
>Would the moderator of news.announce.newgroups post such a CFV?
This has been discussed many times in the past; with Russ now the de
facto primary moderator of n.a.n, I think there's a fairly good chance
it'd go through.
>Would the proponent support such a choice?
No fucking way. :-(
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2001 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
And on Monday, December 10, 2001, the entire Usenet community stopped,
went to Gooja, and collectively gazed at its navel.
Aahz Maruch
>grounds for voting NO on technical grounds because it's a bad name? I
>don't expect to use this group or any other MS games group, so I won't
>directly be affected, but I do think it's harmful to Usenet.
>
>I guess I'll be voting NO, unless people can persuade me that I'm
>mistaken in believing the value of naming in accordance with a naming
>precedence within that hierarchy is outweighed by the disadvantages of
>this particular name.
Despite the snarkiness, Ken does have a point that the "harmful to
Usenet" clause is perhaps a bit excessive. Other than that, I think
that voting NO due to bad name is an excellent reason.
Neil Crellin
unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft
This CFV is to be distributed only by the votetaker. It is not to be
posted to newsgroups, or mailed to mailing lists or individuals, except by
the votetaker. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone else will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
rec.games.video.microsoft The Microsoft Xbox and successor systems.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 7 Jan 2002.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net>
Votetaker: Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc>
RATIONALE: rec.games.video.microsoft
The Microsoft Xbox was released in November 2001. There is currently
no Big 8 newsgroup where this game system can be discussed separately,
although there are newsgroups for Nintendo and Sony. According to
Google, for the one week period 10/25/01-10/31/01, the group
alt.games.video.xbox contained about 2110 posts, or around 300
new messages per day, demonstrating a high traffic level even prior
to the system's release. The proposed group will be a centralized
place for discussion of the system, its games, and any future
systems from Microsoft.
CHARTER: rec.games.video.microsoft
This newsgroup is for discussion of the Microsoft Xbox console
game system (and any future game systems produced by Microsoft
Corporation) and the systems' games. Discussion of PC games produced
by Microsoft (except as they relate to consoles) belongs in an
appropriate PC games group; non-game related discussion of Microsoft
business practices and Microsoft operating systems belongs in an
appropriate comp.* group.
Binaries, including copies of games, are prohibited, except for
small binaries such as PGP signatures.
END CHARTER.
IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: READ THIS BEFORE VOTING
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
reading the proposed newsgroup, and soliciting votes from uninterested
parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
direct people to the official CFV as posted to news.announce.newgroups.
Distributing specific voting instructions or pre-marked copies of
this CFV is considered vote fraud.
This is a public vote: All email addresses, names and votes will be
listed in the final RESULT post. The name used may be either a real
name or an established Usenet handle.
At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid, nor are votes mailed from
WWW/HTML/CGI forms (which should not exist). Votes from nonexistent
accounts or with munged, spam-blocked, or undeliverable addresses are
invalid and will NOT be counted.
Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <ne...@wallaby.cc>
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before and after
the "BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and "END OF BALLOT" lines. Don't worry about
the spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your
reply inserts. Please, DO NOT send the entire CFV back to me!
Fill in the ballot as shown below. Please provide your real name
(or established Usenet handle) and indicate your desired vote in the
appropriate locations inside the ballot.
Examples of how to properly indicate your vote:
[ YES ] example.yes.vote
[ NO ] example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
DO NOT modify, alter or delete any information in this ballot!
If you do, the voting software will probably reject your ballot.
When finished, MAIL the ballot to: < vot...@uvv.wallaby.cc >
Just "replying" to this message should work, but check the "To:" line.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
days contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered correctly.
If these instructions are unclear, please consult the Introduction to
Usenet Voting or the Usenet Voting FAQ at http://www.stanford.edu/~neilc/uvv.
======== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line =======
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1ST CALL FOR VOTES: rec.games.video.microsoft
| Official Usenet Voting Ballot <RGVM-0001> (Do not remove this line!)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Please provide your real name, or your vote may be rejected. Established
| Usenet handles are also acceptable. Place ONLY your name (ie. do NOT
| include your e-mail address or any other information; ONLY your name)
| after the colon on the following line:
Voter name:
| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
Your Vote Newsgroup
--------- -----------------------------------------------------------
[ ] rec.games.video.microsoft
======== END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
This CFV was created with uvpq 1.0 (Feb 6 1999).
PQ datestamp: 980322
--
Voting address: vot...@uvv.wallaby.cc
Neil Crellin
unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft
RATIONALE: rec.games.video.microsoft
CHARTER: rec.games.video.microsoft
END CHARTER.
HOW TO VOTE:
| 2ND CALL FOR VOTES: rec.games.video.microsoft
| Official Usenet Voting Ballot <RGVM-0002> (Do not remove this line!)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Please provide your real name, or your vote may be rejected. Established
| Usenet handles are also acceptable. Place ONLY your name (ie. do NOT
| include your e-mail address or any other information; ONLY your name)
| after the colon on the following line:
Voter name:
| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
Your Vote Newsgroup
--------- -----------------------------------------------------------
[ ] rec.games.video.microsoft
======== END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
rec.games.video.microsoft Bounce List - Please contact me about your vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i_charge_50_b...@nospam.danbirchall.com Dan Birchall
j...@thomson2273.freeserve.oc.ku.nospam Jon Thomson
Giovanni Greco
> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft
During the debate of this RFD there has been a diatribe about the name
of this proposal, the proponent with some users asserted that the name
was correct, others instead affirmed that the name was mistaken
threatening their vote against. So, what has occurred is that we have
had some people agreeing meanwhile others were discordant. But what
is now going to happen is we have a result like: 120:30, where the large
majority (80 per cent) consented with the name proposed, but the small
minority (20 per cent) destroyed the will of the majority. It was wrong
the large majority or the small minority?
We have the vote to measure consensus about the opening of a newsgroup
and in this case the general agreement certified to open the newsgroup
with the proposed name, because the name, as accorded by the large
majority, was appropriate. Why the wrong minority has got to decide?
Why the erroneous minority has got to defeat the large "right" majority?
To end I would like to ask a question to the proponent: if for instance,
we will have the result showed above in six months time will you change
or not the name of the newsgroup as the minority is suggesting you?
And if you change the name are you sure that the large majority that
this time assented with the name that you have presented next time will
vote for the other name?
Giovanni Greco
Neil Crellin
unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
There were 36 YES votes and 22 NO votes, for a total of 58 valid
votes. There were 4 abstentions and 2 invalid ballots.
For a group to pass, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid
(YES and NO) votes. There must also be at least 100 more YES votes
than NO votes.
A five day discussion period follows this announcement. Unless
serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the group
may not be voted on again for six months.
Newsgroups line:
rec.games.video.microsoft The Microsoft Xbox and successor systems.
The voting period closed at 23:59:59 UTC, 7 Jan 2002.
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net>
Votetaker: Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc>
RATIONALE: rec.games.video.microsoft
The Microsoft Xbox was released in November 2001. There is currently
no Big 8 newsgroup where this game system can be discussed separately,
although there are newsgroups for Nintendo and Sony. According to
Google, for the one week period 10/25/01-10/31/01, the group
alt.games.video.xbox contained about 2110 posts, or around 300
new messages per day, demonstrating a high traffic level even prior
to the system's release. The proposed group will be a centralized
place for discussion of the system, its games, and any future
systems from Microsoft.
CHARTER: rec.games.video.microsoft
This newsgroup is for discussion of the Microsoft Xbox console
game system (and any future game systems produced by Microsoft
Corporation) and the systems' games. Discussion of PC games produced
by Microsoft (except as they relate to consoles) belongs in an
appropriate PC games group; non-game related discussion of Microsoft
business practices and Microsoft operating systems belongs in an
appropriate comp.* group.
Binaries, including copies of games, are prohibited, except for
small binaries such as PGP signatures.
END CHARTER.
rec.games.video.microsoft Final Voter list
NOTE: This is not [to be used as] a mailing list. The email addresses
are posted only to help verify the interest poll. Thank you.
Voted YES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
davidharvey [at] shaw.ca David
devnull [at] vianet.ca Trevor Tymchuk
swhfa [at] aol.com SWHFA
tjmc [at] enteract.com tjmc
gregleg [at] gregleg.com Greg Legowski
glove42 [at] hotmail.com Gary Paydon
williamsca [at] process.com Curtis Williams
cubefx [at] rogers.com Joe =
earthscibbs [at] rogers.com David Ramalho
ddmo_1 [at] yahoo.com Donald D. Morris
john0 [at] zworg.com John
mail [at] sebastian-brocks.de Sebastian Brocks
Ekkehard [at] Uthke.de Ekkehard Uthke
bouvin [at] daimi.au.dk Niels Olof Bouvin
brandt [at] etklikherfra.dk Peter Brandt Nielsen
desj [at] Math.Berkeley.EDU David desJardins
fungus [at] OCF.Berkeley.EDU Hank Fung
sth [at] andrew.cmu.edu Steve Hayashi
rah2 [at] duke.edu Ralf Haring
rra [at] stanford.edu Russ Allbery
kevinmcg [at] sas.upenn.edu Kevin McGuire
rufinus [at] cs.widener.edu J Rufinus
dfrost [at] maths.tcd.ie Dermot Frost
lighton [at] monet.bestweb.net Kevin Lighton
dougbob [at] charter.net D. David O'Brian
psmyth [at] gmx.net Peter Smyth
smotheredhope [at] mediaone.net smothered hope
dodcopman [at] netscape.net Dorchester McFadden
van.ette [at] inter.nl.net Robert-Jan van Ette
karromde [at] nyx.net Ken Arromdee
shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha Rao
cinnamon [at] one.net R. N. Dominick
howard [at] shubs.net Howard S Shubs
sagittaria [at] softhome.net Sagittaria
tblake [at] t0dd.org =
alan.ralph [at] redunser.demon.co.uk Alan Ralph
Voted NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rhein [at] betterthanlife.com Jon Rhein
stainles [at] bga.com Dwight Brown
julesd [at] erols.com Jules Dubois
durrell [at] innocence.com Bryant Durrell
ernestcline [at] mindspring.com Ernest Cline
gprrspw [at] mindspring.com G.P. Ryan
dc [at] panix.com David W. Crawford
squid [at] panix.com Yeoh Yiu
aahz [at] pobox.com Aahz
pan [at] syix.com Pan
naddy [at] mips.inka.de Christian Weisgerber
amcmicha [at] Princeton.EDU Andrew McMichael
rick [at] bcm.tmc.edu Richard Miller
hkantola [at] cc.helsinki.fi Heikki Kantola
kmorgan [at] aptalaska.net Kathy I. Morgan
bard [at] dmcom.net Bard
randybennett [at] earthlink.net Randy Bennett
removethis [at] gmx.net ras2
ellis [at] spinics.net Rick Ellis
baloo [at] ursine.dyndns.org Baloo Ursidae
zimnyzenon [at] interia.pl Zenobiusz Zimny
mattheww [at] chiark.greenend.org.uk Matthew Woodcraft
Abstained
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yan [at] storm.ca Yves Bellefeuille
miguel [at] nn.cl Miguel Farah F.
bsmith [at] 14inverleith.freeserve.co.uk Benjamin Smith
chriseb [at] ukshells.co.uk Chris Ebenezer
Invalid votes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i_charge_50_bucks_per_spam [at] nospam.danbirchall.com Dan Birchall
! Invalid address: Host not found - Whiners prevent votetaker demunging
jon [at] thomson2273.freeserve.oc.ku.nospam Jon Thomson
! Invalid address: Host not found - Whiners prevent votetaker demunging
--
Neil Crellin, UVV <ne...@wallaby.cc>
Tim Skirvin
> RESULT
> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
(Not directed at anyone in particular, just a comment on the state of the
Big-8.)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/> Skirv's Homepage <FISH><
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/> The Killfile Dungeon <*>
Andrew Ryan Chang
but not in the alt.games.* hierarchy, I wish the CFV had been posted to
rec.games.video.sega and rec.games.video.nintendo as well. (I typically
only read rec.games.video.sega on a regular basis.)
--
Wiggum: This bullet matches the one we pulled out of Mr. Burns! Homer
Simpson, you're under arrest for attempted murder.
Homer: [getting cuffed] D'oh!
Wiggum: Yeah, that's what they all say. They all say "D'oh".
Jay Denebeim
> RESULT
> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
Jeeze louise Ken why the heck did you go for a CFV without knowing you
had the votes? You know better than that.
Brian Mailman
>
> Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc> writes:
>
> > RESULT
> > unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
> (Not directed at anyone in particular, just a comment on the state of the
> Big-8.)
I disagree. All it tells us is that:
36 (possibly 39 if all three invalidated votes were Yes) were interested
in reading _this_ proposed group with _this_ proposed name at _this_
particular time. 40, if the person who would have voted Yes had he
known about the CFV.
This indicates nothing about the state of Usenet (somewhere between
Texas and Vermont?); however, the latter statement would seem to
indicate investigating whether or not the proposal was promoted
thoroughly.
Seeing some of the names on the voter list and recalling articles
associated with those names _might_ indicate a resistance to the name.
B/
Tim Skirvin
>>> RESULT
>>> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
>> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
>> (Not directed at anyone in particular, just a comment on the state of the
>> Big-8.)
>I disagree. All it tells us is that:
>36 (possibly 39 if all three invalidated votes were Yes) were interested
>in reading _this_ proposed group with _this_ proposed name at _this_
>particular time. 40, if the person who would have voted Yes had he
>known about the CFV.
If there were more "No" votes, or even "Abstain", I'd agree. As
it is, the results indicate that *there was no interest* - and I can't
possibly believe that.
What it indicates to me is that there wasn't sufficient (any?)
campaigning done. And it bothers me that campaigning is required.
Klaas
news:tskirvin....@ks.uiuc.edu...
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
> >>> RESULT
> >>> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
> >> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
> >> (Not directed at anyone in particular, just a comment on the
state of the
> >> Big-8.)
> >I disagree. All it tells us is that:
>
> >36 (possibly 39 if all three invalidated votes were Yes) were
interested
> >in reading _this_ proposed group with _this_ proposed name at
_this_
> >particular time. 40, if the person who would have voted Yes had he
> >known about the CFV.
>
> If there were more "No" votes, or even "Abstain", I'd agree. As
> it is, the results indicate that *there was no interest* - and I
can't
> possibly believe that.
>
> What it indicates to me is that there wasn't sufficient (any?)
> campaigning done. And it bothers me that campaigning is required.
Campaigning perhaps not, but promotion is definately required. Most
usenet denizens do not frequent the relevant news.* groups where all
CFVs are posted.
-Mike
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> If there were more "No" votes, or even "Abstain", I'd agree. As
> it is, the results indicate that *there was no interest* - and I can't
> possibly believe that.
It is always hard to understand why a group gets some votes or does
not. I know one No vote was because of namespace, however 125 yes
vtes this group would have passed. It appears distribution list could
have increased Yes vote a little, more feedback may indicate
more votes could have been recieved. Timing of vote also could be a
factor.
>
> What it indicates to me is that there wasn't sufficient (any?)
> campaigning done. And it bothers me that campaigning is required.
The proponent can answer if there was campaigning. Though what might be
the biggest problem is that many users do not appear to understand what
a CFV is or even what big-8 is. This problem most likely started
to become a problem with always September, the numbers of users still
appear to be growing (or at least data posted to Usenet) each day.
Privicy and being spam blocked also can reduce the number of votes,
as the times have changed.
I do not know the answer, some people might not have voted for the
group because they were happy where they were already discussing the
votes, such could have abstained, however that has no effect on Results
and lists a valid (easy recovered) email that could be harvested.
>
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
> --
> <URL:http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/> Skirv's Homepage <FISH><
> <URL:http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/> The Killfile Dungeon <*>
--
George William Herbert
victims of the massive cancel-floods we saw in December?
I am frankly worried that with the list of groups the proposal
went to, the vote count is almost unbelievably low, even for
a proposal whose namespace choice was controversial.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Brian Mailman
>
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
> >>> RESULT
> >>> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
> >> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
> >I disagree. All it tells us is that:
>
> >36 (possibly 39 if all three invalidated votes were Yes) were interested
> >in reading _this_ proposed group with _this_ proposed name at _this_
> >particular time. 40, if the person who would have voted Yes had he
> >known about the CFV.
> If there were more "No" votes, or even "Abstain", I'd agree. As
> it is, the results indicate that *there was no interest* - and I can't
> possibly believe that.
I'm not sure I do either--but my point is that there's not enough data
to draw conclusions about the condition of Usenet. You need at _least_
two data points to show a trend.
> What it indicates to me is that there wasn't sufficient (any?)
> campaigning done. And it bothers me that campaigning is required.
I think "campaigning" is too strong a word. "Promotion" is more likely
a culprit in the low turnout. If the lurker:poster 10:1 ratio holds in
this case, there (so far) are at least 10 more folks that would have
voted if they'd known about the proposal.
Looking again at the Results, I don't recognize many names at all I
would attribute to the habitual Wet Blankets. This does seem to me that
in addition to the low turnout there was one or more problems with the
proposal.
B/
Russ Allbery
>> RESULT
>> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
Yes, I can.
That looks to me like a fairly resounding "what's wrong with
alt.games.video.xbox and why should we create a new, confusingly-named
group with the same topic?" to me.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
shidoshi
> There were 36 YES votes and 22 NO votes, for a total of 58 valid
> votes. There were 4 abstentions and 2 invalid ballots.
Am I allowed to post a follow-up with opinions on these kinds of things?
Eh, screw it - I'm going to anyhow. =^)
First, why people would vote NO to a new newsgroup (one that has honest
relevence) is beyond me. Second, the fact that a propsed newsgroup such as
rec.games.video.microsoft (which has valid reason for existing) would need
to be VOTED IN also baffles me - I'm not sure we still need to live under
those kinds of rules.
But, then again, I guess that's why I don't rule the internet or anything.
*shrugs*
.............
@shidoshi
http://morningmayo.com - Travel the Road of Shared Culture
Change "night" to "morning" to e-mail me
Said about shidoshi - December 2001:
"Hey, Dave Halverson said you're gay, is that true? sorry about that question coming out of nowhere, but i just bumped into Dave Halverson yesterday, and he brought you up so i wanted to know."
- E-mail I recieved from someone I know.
ba...@dmcom.net
>
>
> First, why people would vote NO to a new newsgroup (one that has honest
> relevence) is beyond me. Second, the fact that a propsed newsgroup such as
> rec.games.video.microsoft (which has valid reason for existing) would need
> to be VOTED IN also baffles me - I'm not sure we still need to live under
> those kinds of rules.
Well not sure if you reading this group but to answer your question.
There are generally accepted 4 good reasons to vote No on a group.
1) Bad names space, i.e. the name does not define what is the topic of
the group well.
2) Poorly writen charter that does not define the group well.
3) Forming the group will cause harm to existing group(s)
4) Moderation policy or proposed moderators believed bad for proposed
group, this only applies to proposed moderated groups.
To the 2nd "which has valid reason for existing" has nothing to do with
a new group being formed. Groups for some rather strange things have
be formed because enough people indicated that they want to use such
a group. I am not sure what yuo mean by a valid reason, if you
mean because MS now makes a console it should have a news group there
are many other items made that do not get a group just because they
exist.
piranha
> Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc> writes:
>
> > RESULT
> > unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
>
> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
> (Not directed at anyone in particular, just a comment on the state of the
> Big-8.)
that _is_ surprisingly low.
but unless something went wrong with the distribution of the CFV
(ken also posted pointers to a couple of groups i believe), it
says to me that users are actually happy with the existing alt.*
group. believe it or not, that happens (i participate in one
alt.* group which steadfastly resists a move to the big-8 about
once a year).
still, it's terribly low and i don't see the whole stable of wet
blankets in the vote either. hm.
--
-piranha
Jay Denebeim
shidoshi <shid...@nightmayo.com> wrote:
>In article <10106901...@isc.org>, Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc>
>wrote:
>
>> There were 36 YES votes and 22 NO votes, for a total of 58 valid
>> votes. There were 4 abstentions and 2 invalid ballots.
>Am I allowed to post a follow-up with opinions on these kinds of
>things?
Of course you are.
>First, why people would vote NO to a new newsgroup (one that has
>honest relevence) is beyond me.
This had a very low 'no' turnout. It's rarely below 10 and there was
some contoversy involved with the name of the newsgroup. This
included a proponant who after everyone debated the name and came up
with something everyone stating an opinon could live with chose to
keep his original name. (Now, granted, that name IMO was the correct
one)
So, really, only 22 no votes is quite low given the circumstances.
The problem is the 'yes' votes, there arn't any.
>Second, the fact that a propsed newsgroup such as
>rec.games.video.microsoft (which has valid reason for existing) would
>need to be VOTED IN also baffles me - I'm not sure we still need to
>live under those kinds of rules.
Uh, take a look at what a mess alt is in. You've got pretty much two
choices as to how to make a newsgroup: 1) You can convince someone
in power that it's a good idea to make a group or 2) you can have
something like alt which doen't require convinding anyone to create
the group. The big-8 works with 1 and in the interest of fareness on
the part of the person in power what it takes to convince him is a
vote. That's as good of a way to do this as any other IMO.
James Logajan
> Umm... has anyone checked to see if the CFVs were among the
> victims of the massive cancel-floods we saw in December?
>
> I am frankly worried that with the list of groups the proposal
> went to, the vote count is almost unbelievably low, even for
> a proposal whose namespace choice was controversial.
Good point; my NSP, newsguy.com, seems to be missing ALL the CFVs for
December posted to n.a.n and this group. But it clearly shows it is holding
articles from the end of November for both groups, so they should still be
within the retention period. Google on the other hand didn't honor the
cancels, so it still seems to show all the messages.
ba...@dmcom.net
UNS still lists for me both CFV for this group.
It though also still has c.d in this reader which we know was
canciled.
Posting dates reported
1st CFV r.g.v.m 12/17/01
2nd CFV t.g.v.m 12/19/01
1st CFV c.d 11/27/01
Agent (back up reader, does not show any of these. I will also note
that 2nd CFV for c.s.a.m does not report posted to me either, your
vote. The first dated 11/29/01 is reported in this reader.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Tim Skirvin wrote:
>> What it indicates to me is that there wasn't sufficient (any?)
>> campaigning done. And it bothers me that campaigning is required.
>
>The proponent can answer if there was campaigning. Though what might be
I don't recall reading anything in any of the rec.games.video
newsgroups I frequent (Sega first, Sony second, Nintendo, advocacy, and
arcade last). The last I heard about this was when it was in RFD
phase on my very occasional jaunts through this newsgroup.
Moreover, the CFV was issued during the holidays and <other
excuses I'm sure news.groups denizens have heard all the time>.
--
Smile! You're at Mr. Smiley's.
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
James Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>
>Good point; my NSP, newsguy.com, seems to be missing ALL the CFVs for
>December posted to n.a.n and this group. But it clearly shows it is holding
>articles from the end of November for both groups, so they should still be
>within the retention period.
Mmm, the CFVs for r.g.v.m should have expired a few days ago, as
per their Expires: headers. So the absence in itself is not
indicative of a problem.
Would anyone still have the cancel messages, if they existed?
--
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
je...@litech.org
Jay Denebeim
Ken Arromdee <arro...@yellow.rahul.net> wrote:
>One of the reasons I proposed this group is that I wanted to see for
>myself how bad the process was. Well, I've seen it.
Ah, okay, so you've proven that a proponant who doesn't do any work,
doesn't follow advice, and doesn't make sure he has the votes before
calling the vote will fail. Gosh, that is just earth shattering
information. Something that I'm sure wouldn't be obvious to anyone
with an IQ below that of a cabbage. Congratulations.
Hint: if people knew that a vote was going on they'd get out and
vote. Just for future reference, you understand.
Tim Skirvin
>>One of the reasons I proposed this group is that I wanted to see for
>>myself how bad the process was. Well, I've seen it.
>Ah, okay, so you've proven that a proponant who doesn't do any work,
>doesn't follow advice, and doesn't make sure he has the votes before
>calling the vote will fail.
It looks to me like he wanted to check something out, and found a
worthwhile goal to pursue with his research too. This doesn't seem bad to
me. It sounds like what I did with free.*, in fact.
>Hint: if people knew that a vote was going on they'd get out and
>vote. Just for future reference, you understand.
It's difficult to let people know this information. As time goes
on, I've begun to feel that it's too difficult. I don't think it should
be required.
Leo G Simonetta
Unfortunately Newsguy has intermittent problems with widely
crossposted CFVs, RFDs and results. In numerous email
conversations with them I have been unable to get to the bottom
of what is going on.
Newsguy does not honor cancels so that is not it.
--
Leo G. Simonetta Please note new address
lsimo...@newsguy.com
Tim Skirvin
>>>>> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
>>>> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
[...]
>I'm not sure I do either--but my point is that there's not enough data
>to draw conclusions about the condition of Usenet. You need at _least_
>two data points to show a trend.
From the archives, all the proposals that went to vote:
rec.games.video.sega 267:81 1993/04/12
rec.games.video.nintendo 268:78 1993/04/12
rec.games.video.marketplace 277:68 1993/04/12
rec.games.video.misc (rename) 241:106 1993/04/12
rec.games.video.classic 257:85 1993/04/12
rec.games.video.atari 195:41 1993/12/16
rec.games.video.3do 177:49 1993/12/16
rec.games.video.advocacy 185:51 1993/12/16
rec.games.video.arcade.collecting 165:16 1993/12/17
rec.games.video.cd-i 286:35 1995/01/05
rec.games.video.sony 196:38 1995/04/14
rec.games.video.sports 43:28 1995/05/23
rec.games.video.sony.psx.info 57:50 1996/06/06
rec.games.video.sony.psx.advocacy 50:53 1996/06/06
rec.games.video.sony.psx.marketplace 53:50 1996/06/06
rec.games.video.sony.psx.misc 57:52 1996/06/06
rec.games.sony.misc (rename) 48:58 1996/06/06
rec.games.video.arcade.marketplace 132:29 1997/09/30
Okay, I'll admit it - the less popular rec.games.video.* proposals
just don't get votes, one way or the other.
Kathy I. Morgan
> Good point; my NSP, newsguy.com, seems to be missing ALL the CFVs for
> December posted to n.a.n and this group.
Both CFVs for this proposal arrived at NewsGuy. I don't know if they're
still on the servers, but I've got both of them.
--
Kathy
visit news:news.groups.reviews to read reviews of other newsgroups
help for new users of newsgroups at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
Kathy I. Morgan
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
> >>> RESULT
> >>> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
> >> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
> >> (Not directed at anyone in particular, just a comment on the state of the
> >> Big-8.)
> >I disagree. All it tells us is that:
>
> >36 (possibly 39 if all three invalidated votes were Yes) were interested
> >in reading _this_ proposed group with _this_ proposed name at _this_
> >particular time. 40, if the person who would have voted Yes had he
> >known about the CFV.
>
> If there were more "No" votes, or even "Abstain", I'd agree. As
> it is, the results indicate that *there was no interest* - and I can't
> possibly believe that.
I think the results probably indicate that those who were interested
agreed that the name was bad, and so did not vote Yes on the proposal.
Since they were interested, they also did not vote No.
James Logajan
> Unfortunately Newsguy has intermittent problems with widely
> crossposted CFVs, RFDs and results. In numerous email
> conversations with them I have been unable to get to the bottom
> of what is going on.
>
> Newsguy does not honor cancels so that is not it.
Jeffrey M. Vinocur in another message notes that they probably don't show
because they expired per the expires header value (I'd overlooked that). Do
you know if Newsguy honors the expires header?
Graham Drabble
news:ylwuypd...@windlord.stanford.edu:
> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> writes:
>> Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc> writes:
>
>>> RESULT
>>> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
>
>> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this
>> group.
>
> Yes, I can.
You may be right.
> That looks to me like a fairly resounding "what's wrong with
> alt.games.video.xbox and why should we create a new,
> confusingly-named group with the same topic?" to me.
I would actually expect a high NO vote if this was the case as people
would not want to see the traffic split.
--
Graham Drabble
If you're interested in what goes on in other groups or want to find
an interesting group to read then check news.groups.reviews for what
others have to say or contribute a review for others to read.
Adam H. Kerman
>Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> writes:
>>Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc> writes:
>>> RESULT
>>> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
>> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
>Yes, I can.
>That looks to me like a fairly resounding "what's wrong with
>alt.games.video.xbox and why should we create a new, confusingly-named
>group with the same topic?" to me.
That's right. There was overwhelming support among the lurkers against
duplicating relatively high-traffic alt.* groups with new Big 8 groups. Nyah.
I'm sure if I'd remembered to, I'd have voted against this. The right side
still would have won among those of us not paying sufficient attention...
Kathy I. Morgan
> In article <a1lcn...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> James Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
> >
> >Good point; my NSP, newsguy.com, seems to be missing ALL the CFVs for
> >December posted to n.a.n and this group. But it clearly shows it is holding
> >articles from the end of November for both groups, so they should still be
> >within the retention period.
>
> Mmm, the CFVs for r.g.v.m should have expired a few days ago, as
> per their Expires: headers. So the absence in itself is not
> indicative of a problem.
I also use NewsGuy with an offline reader. I know for certain both
CFV's appeared on NewsGuy because I still have both of them saved on my
hard drive. Newsguy doesn't honor cancels, so once they arrived on the
server they would stay there until they expired.
I don't happen to know if NewsGuy honors the "Expires:" header, but if
online readers are no longer able to retrieve the CFV's, then I believe
NewsGuy does honor it. Normal expire time on NewsGuy in text groups is
something in excess of 30 days, so they would still be there under
normal expiry.
Leo Simonetta commented on the problems NewsGuy has had in the past with
widely crossposted CFVs, RFDs, and RESULTS. They have adjusted their
filtering so that crossposts to more than 5 groups in news.* do not
automatically get dropped. (Some still don't appear, but it's not
nearly as much of a problem as it was.)
Dick Wisan
Tim Skirvin, (tski...@killfile.org) says...
>
>Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
>>>> RESULT
>>>> unmoderated group rec.games.video.microsoft fails 36:22
>>> You can't possibly tell me there was no interest in this group.
>>> (Not directed at anyone in particular, just a comment on the state of the
>>> Big-8.)
>>I disagree. All it tells us is that:
>
>>36 (possibly 39 if all three invalidated votes were Yes) were interested
>>in reading _this_ proposed group with _this_ proposed name at _this_
>>particular time. 40, if the person who would have voted Yes had he
>>known about the CFV.
>
> If there were more "No" votes, or even "Abstain", I'd agree. As
>it is, the results indicate that *there was no interest* - and I can't
>possibly believe that.
>
> What it indicates to me is that there wasn't sufficient (any?)
>campaigning done. And it bothers me that campaigning is required.
Are you sure it doesn't indicate that microsoft video game players are
perhaps web people, but not Usenet people?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am. No fax.
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> Are you sure it doesn't indicate that microsoft video game players are
> perhaps web people, but not Usenet people?
>
There clearly was a lot of Usenet posts about xbox in usenet and the alt
group is active. So that unlikely the answer for low turn out.
James Logajan
> Jeffrey M. Vinocur <je...@litech.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <a1lcn...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> > James Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Good point; my NSP, newsguy.com, seems to be missing ALL the CFVs for
> > >December posted to n.a.n and this group. But it clearly shows it is
holding
> > >articles from the end of November for both groups, so they should still
be
> > >within the retention period.
> >
> > Mmm, the CFVs for r.g.v.m should have expired a few days ago, as
> > per their Expires: headers. So the absence in itself is not
> > indicative of a problem.
>
> I also use NewsGuy with an offline reader. I know for certain both
> CFV's appeared on NewsGuy because I still have both of them saved on my
> hard drive. Newsguy doesn't honor cancels, so once they arrived on the
> server they would stay there until they expired.
>
> I don't happen to know if NewsGuy honors the "Expires:" header, but if
> online readers are no longer able to retrieve the CFV's, then I believe
> NewsGuy does honor it. Normal expire time on NewsGuy in text groups is
> something in excess of 30 days, so they would still be there under
> normal expiry.
Yes, it does look like Newsguy honors "Expires" and I also remember seeing
the original CFVs. They don't seem to honor cancels, so it is not possible
to say that a cancel attack caused the low turnout. I'm guessing not,
because the MorphOS vote passed and was in the same time frame. Although to
be effective a cancel probably has to happen within hours of the original
CFV. Most votes occur within the first three days after a CFV appears. For
the MorphOS vote I saw spikes after the first and second CFV and a third
spike when pointers were posted to the de.* and fr.* groups. I can tell you
that if those pointers had not appeared in the de.* and fr.* groups that
that group stood a better than even chance of failing. So good distribution
and "face time" seems to be an important factor to consider if proponents
want their group to pass. Therefore multiple RFDs are probably a good thing;
classic advertising rule of thumb: high visibility is almost always good.
RFD time is the best time to get it.
tjmc
>Dick Wisan wrote:
>> Are you sure it doesn't indicate that microsoft video game players are
>> perhaps web people, but not Usenet people?
>There clearly was a lot of Usenet posts about xbox in usenet and the alt
>group is active. So that unlikely the answer for low turn out.
Dunno about the alt group. Given the choice I'd always read big-8 over
alt.
I voted YES because my kids just got an XBOX and we already have some
questions. But I suspect--aside from the questions regarding
naming--the whole thing is just too new.
I'm hoping someone tries this again in six months to a year.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
[regarding the interpretation of the results]
>Are you sure it doesn't indicate that microsoft video game players are
>perhaps web people, but not Usenet people?
If the volume in the existing alt.* group, according to the proponent,
is an indication, the answer is that probably isn't the case.
ru
--
My (updated) standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Dick Wisan
>
>>Hint: if people knew that a vote was going on they'd get out and
>>vote. Just for future reference, you understand.
>
> It's difficult to let people know this information. As time goes
>on, I've begun to feel that it's too difficult. I don't think it should
>be required.
What's the alternative? Vote by the news.groups regulars only? If the
potential voters aren't to be told, why take a vote at all? Without
some kind of poll, I should think simply letting it be decided by Tale
or whomever he appoints to do it would be as good as any other plan.
This principle applies to any election for anything, by anybody.
Tim Skirvin
>>>Hint: if people knew that a vote was going on they'd get out and
>>>vote. Just for future reference, you understand.
>> It's difficult to let people know this information. As time goes
>>on, I've begun to feel that it's too difficult. I don't think it should
>>be required.
>What's the alternative? Vote by the news.groups regulars only?
Offer several systems. Let the RFD/CFV system exist for when it's
appropriate; but also create a group of people (5 or 7) that can make
groups by a simple majority vote, and allow a single tale-like person to
create groups entirely on their own. It'd be nice if there was someone to
whom you could appeal and say "look! This alt.* group is doing well!
Let's make a Big-8 equivalent!"
The current system is okay; it just shouldn't be the only system,
at least not if the Big-8 is supposed to remain the most useful.
Kathy I. Morgan
> wis...@catskill.net (Dick Wisan) writes:
>
> >>>Hint: if people knew that a vote was going on they'd get out and
> >>>vote. Just for future reference, you understand.
> >> It's difficult to let people know this information. As time goes
> >>on, I've begun to feel that it's too difficult. I don't think it should
> >>be required.
> >What's the alternative? Vote by the news.groups regulars only?
>
> Offer several systems. Let the RFD/CFV system exist for when it's
> appropriate; but also create a group of people (5 or 7) that can make
> groups by a simple majority vote, and allow a single tale-like person to
> create groups entirely on their own. It'd be nice if there was someone to
> whom you could appeal and say "look! This alt.* group is doing well!
> Let's make a Big-8 equivalent!"
Good ideas!
Andrew Gierth
Tim> Offer several systems. Let the RFD/CFV system exist for when
Tim> it's appropriate; but also create a group of people (5 or 7)
Tim> that can make groups by a simple majority vote, and allow a
Tim> single tale-like person to create groups entirely on their own.
Tim> It'd be nice if there was someone to whom you could appeal and
Tim> say "look! This alt.* group is doing well! Let's make a Big-8
Tim> equivalent!"
The usual comparison that tends to come up at this point is with uk.*,
which is a lot like your description above.
The uk.* committee can't create groups by fiat (though it can advise
Control on whether to do a current-events style instant creation in
some subhierarchies), but it does act as arbiter of the fast-track
creation method (which takes 10+ days of discussion and a 5 day
objection period - the fastest one that I did during my stint as
Control was newgrouped 18 days after the submission of the proposal).
The downside of the uk.* system is there is way too much procedural
meta-discussion, and (especially recently) a tendency to nitpick over
the wording of the rules at the expense of common sense.
--
Andrew.
David C. DiNucci
>
> dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>
> >>One of the reasons I proposed this group is that I wanted to see for
> >>myself how bad the process was. Well, I've seen it.
> >Ah, okay, so you've proven that a proponant who doesn't do any work,
> >doesn't follow advice, and doesn't make sure he has the votes before
> >calling the vote will fail.
Isn't the theoretical goal of a Usenet poll to determine whether there
is sufficient interest in a particular group, by potential readers, to
warrant its creation? You can't have a reliable measurement if you
don't have enough potential readers subject themselves to the
measurement (e.g. because they don't know that it is occurring).
> >Hint: if people knew that a vote was going on they'd get out and
> >vote. Just for future reference, you understand.
>
> It's difficult to let people know this information. As time goes
> on, I've begun to feel that it's too difficult. I don't think it should
> be required.
It isn't so difficult to let people know this information, it's just
darned near illegal. For example, in the "Web pointers re RFD question"
thread, we have someone saying that only the votetaker should post
pointers. In the "comp.distributed" thread, a case
(rec.music.experimental) has come to light where people, who had already
explicitly expressed interest in the group before a vote, were going to
be cross-questioned and potentially disqualified by the votetaker after
the vote because they had received an email reminder from the proponent
during the vote. (The votetaker stopped short apparently only because he
found that disqualifying them all mathematically couldn't have made a
difference in the outcome, but what if it had been otherwise?) Then
there are all the non-existent guidelines about "no campaigning during a
vote" and "neutral pointers" that some (many?) people try to enforce
through a threat of NO votes.
It seems to all come down to trying to ensure that only potential
readers of the group respond to (or are counted in) the poll, but it's
all subjective. In the extreme, virtually everyone who can see the CFV
is a potential reader--which is my guess as to why voting instructions
are only allowed in the CFV.
-- Dave
Jay Denebeim
David C. DiNucci <da...@elepar.com> wrote:
>(rec.music.experimental) has come to light where people, who had
>already explicitly expressed interest in the group before a vote,
>were going to be cross-questioned and potentially disqualified by the
>votetaker after the vote because they had received an email reminder
>from the proponent during the vote.
It was more than a reminder it was a campaign for 'yes' votes IIRC.
That's where the line is drawn. It has to be done that way otherwise
you get proponants going to inappropriate groups campaigning for 'no'
votes. Like... I can't think of a real one, say an opponant of a
'BDSM' newsgroup going to the christian newsgroups and playing the
satan card.
BarB
>In article <3C425650...@elepar.com>,
>David C. DiNucci <da...@elepar.com> wrote:
>
>>(rec.music.experimental) has come to light where people, who had
>>already explicitly expressed interest in the group before a vote,
>>were going to be cross-questioned and potentially disqualified by the
>>votetaker after the vote because they had received an email reminder
>>from the proponent during the vote.
>
>It was more than a reminder it was a campaign for 'yes' votes IIRC.
>That's where the line is drawn. It has to be done that way otherwise
>you get proponants going to inappropriate groups campaigning for 'no'
>votes. Like... I can't think of a real one, say an opponant of a
>'BDSM' newsgroup going to the christian newsgroups and playing the
>satan card.
>
>Jay
Hmmm,refresh my memory. Has there been such a case? Suppose I go to a
newsgroup and ask everyone to vote "no" because the group is insulting to
my religion, politics, racial heritage, sexual orientation, country ( pick
one) . What will happen? Can the vote be thrown out? It's not the
proponent's fault. Now if the UVV could trace those "no" votes to a
pre-filled ballot, I could see dropping them; but what about a pointer
that would normally not be permitted to a proponent?
BarB
Tim Miller
news:87lmf1d...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk...
> The downside of the uk.* system is there is way too much procedural
> meta-discussion, and (especially recently) a tendency to nitpick over
> the wording of the rules at the expense of common sense.
Although Andy Mabbet seems to have left now :)
Tim (tm)
David C. DiNucci
>
> In article <3C425650...@elepar.com>,
> David C. DiNucci <da...@elepar.com> wrote:
>
> >(rec.music.experimental) has come to light where people, who had
> >already explicitly expressed interest in the group before a vote,
> >were going to be cross-questioned and potentially disqualified by the
> >votetaker after the vote because they had received an email reminder
> >from the proponent during the vote.
>
> It was more than a reminder it was a campaign for 'yes' votes IIRC.
I don't pretend to know the details, BTW, since I'm just basing my
comments on the RESULT post, but I'm not sure I understand why it makes
a difference (for reasons here).
> That's where the line is drawn. It has to be done that way otherwise
> you get proponants going to inappropriate groups campaigning for 'no'
> votes.
(I guess you meant "opponents".) So? Are you suggesting that that
would be OK before the CFV, but not during? And your "inappropriate
group" comment suggests that it's inappropriate for some people to learn
of the vote? Is that also the proponent's job, to ensure that potential
NO voters do NOT learn of the vote?
(This brings up an interesting tangent. If I was right before, that a
Usenet poll is intended to measure potential readers of the group, then
what does "NO" even mean? That "I am a potential reader, but I don't
want the group to even exist"? Maybe "I would have been a potential
reader under different circumstances (e.g. with a different name or
slightly different charter) but I'm not now"? Maybe "Yes, I intend to
read, but only to harrass"?)
> Like... I can't think of a real one, say an opponant of a
> 'BDSM' newsgroup going to the christian newsgroups and playing the
> satan card.
People are either allowed to vote NO, or they're not.
Put this all together, and it sounds like people are allowed (and maybe
expected) to vote NO for any old reason, or no reason at all, but YES
voters need to be prepared to justify their votes. I'm hoping someone
can convince me otherwise.
-Dave
David C. DiNucci
> (This brings up an interesting tangent. If I was right before, that a
> Usenet poll is intended to measure potential readers of the group, then
> what does "NO" even mean? That "I am a potential reader, but I don't
> want the group to even exist"? Maybe "I would have been a potential
> reader under different circumstances (e.g. with a different name or
> slightly different charter) but I'm not now"? Maybe "Yes, I intend to
> read, but only to harrass"?)
In thinking a bit more on this tangent, maybe it should have been
"potential readers of Usenet", rather than "potential readers of the
group". That opens the possible interpretations of "NO" a bit
more...e.g. "I read Usenet, but I don't want a group with this name
and/or charter 'cluttering up' the namespace". In fact, that is
probably a common interpretation. So, I withdraw the tangent :-)
-- Dave
Jay Denebeim
David C. DiNucci <da...@elepar.com> wrote:
>Jay Denebeim wrote:
>>
>> In article <3C425650...@elepar.com>,
>> David C. DiNucci <da...@elepar.com> wrote:
>> That's where the line is drawn. It has to be done that way otherwise
>> you get proponants going to inappropriate groups campaigning for 'no'
>> votes.
>(I guess you meant "opponents".) So? Are you suggesting that that
>would be OK before the CFV, but not during? And your "inappropriate
>group" comment suggests that it's inappropriate for some people to learn
>of the vote? Is that also the proponent's job, to ensure that potential
>NO voters do NOT learn of the vote?
Well, it's never inappropriate for people who want to affect usenet to
vote. What is inappropriate is for people to go out and bring people
who have no interest in the process and no interest in a particular
subject to come in for a vote.
It's okay to vote 'no' if you think the group will hurt a group you
like, it's misplaced in the hierarchy, its misnamed, the moderators
are not good ones, or many other reasons. It's not okay to vote 'no'
because you don't like the topic.
The only one of these that's still coming to mind is the
rec.music.white-power group. This was a group proposed by some neo
nazis. It caused a huge amount of controversy even to the point that
'all things considered' interviewed both Dave Lawrence and the
proponant. There were over 20,000 no votes to this. It was an f*ing
circus. There's still e-mail floating around where people are given
instructions how to vote 'no'. As far as I know the poor UVV is still
getting no votes. (he quit over this BTW). Oh, then there was the
guy who offered physical bribes for 'no' votes (stamps IIRC). Didn't
work, that vote was canceled and so was his membership in his
professional organization, too bad it didn't put him out of business.
Same thing goes on on the other side. In the first padania vote they
worked really hard to get people out for the vote. Aparently they
even dug some famous decomposing composers out of their graves to vote
for the group. That didn't work either. The proponant kept showing
up every six months until his political party died I think. Then he
stopped showing up, although before that he swore he didn't want the
newsgroup for political reasons. Funny that.
>> Like... I can't think of a real one, say an opponant of a
>> 'BDSM' newsgroup going to the christian newsgroups and playing the
>> satan card.
>
>People are either allowed to vote NO, or they're not.
They are. People arn't allowed to induce people to go out of their
way to vote about a newsgroup they normally wouldn't care about
though. There isn't a list of registered voters on usenet, perhaps
there should be, but there's not. The vote is open to anyone, so
there's attempts at ballot stuffing. This is why there's a
registration in the real world I believe.
>Put this all together, and it sounds like people are allowed (and maybe
>expected) to vote NO for any old reason, or no reason at all, but YES
>voters need to be prepared to justify their votes. I'm hoping someone
>can convince me otherwise.
Oh, no. Both come under fire.
David C. DiNucci
> Well, it's never inappropriate for people who want to affect usenet to
> vote. What is inappropriate is for people to go out and bring people
> who have no interest in the process and no interest in a particular
> subject to come in for a vote.
And you suggest that it's possible to objectively determine whether or
not people have an interest in a particular subject, and moreover, that
it is possible to show that they don't even after they say they do by
responding to a Usenet poll. (I can't tell here whether "interest"
would include "dislike", such as your example of the Christians vs.
BDSM.)
> It's okay to vote 'no' if you think the group will hurt a group you
> like, it's misplaced in the hierarchy, its misnamed, the moderators
> are not good ones, or many other reasons. It's not okay to vote 'no'
> because you don't like the topic.
"Not okay to vote no". If there are no repurcussions for voting NO for
these reasons, and no way to stop people from voting NO for those
reasons in the first place, then I'm not sure what the statement means.
Maybe it's just a personal opinion? If there are repurcussions, it's
beginning to sound like a Usenet poll isn't so much of a poll as an
invitation to ask the respondents more questions--even in light of John
Stanley's wonderfully informative FAQ which specifically states that one
shouldn't do that.
> The only one of these that's still coming to mind is the
> rec.music.white-power group. This was a group proposed by some neo
> nazis. It caused a huge amount of controversy even to the point that
> 'all things considered' interviewed both Dave Lawrence and the
> proponant. There were over 20,000 no votes to this. It was an f*ing
> circus.
I'm trying to make the connection. You are saying that these NO votes
were invalid because these people just didn't like the topic? Or that
they were valid because that is how you (would have) voted? If one
throws out any idea of whether voters had a "valid" reason for voting a
particular way, then there apparently would not have been an issue
here--you count the votes (i.e. for people who really exist and weren't
bribed or coerced into voting a particular way), and so it goes.
> There's still e-mail floating around where people are given
> instructions how to vote 'no'.
As I said, I can see the argument for making it illegal to circulate
voting instructions, since doing so can help ensure that people are
voting based on what they see in the CFV, and that they can at least
access Usenet to read the instructions. It also happens to be right
there in the guidelines, so it's not what I was talking about.
> ...Oh, then there was the
> guy who offered physical bribes for 'no' votes (stamps IIRC). Didn't
> work, that vote was canceled and so was his membership in his
> professional organization, too bad it didn't put him out of business.
I presume it would be pretty easy to make a guideline for this, too,
with little if any dissension, if one doesn't already exist.
> ... Aparently they
> even dug some famous decomposing composers out of their graves to vote
> for the group. ...
So, in some of these cases, you have cited actions which are clearly
against guidelines, or could easily be made against guidelines (e.g.
bribery, coercion, fraud, etc.). My post, on the other hand, addressed
the cases (such as some of the first you mentioned) which simply had to
do with announcing the vote the wrong way or the wrong time or to the
wrong people. Apples and oranges.
> >> Like... I can't think of a real one, say an opponant of a
> >> 'BDSM' newsgroup going to the christian newsgroups and playing the
> >> satan card.
> >
> >People are either allowed to vote NO, or they're not.
>
> They are. People arn't allowed to induce people to go out of their
> way to vote about a newsgroup they normally wouldn't care about
> though.
"Induce" them by telling them about the vote and suggesting some reasons
for voting NO (or, for that matter, YES)?
> There isn't a list of registered voters on usenet, perhaps
> there should be, but there's not. The vote is open to anyone, so
> there's attempts at ballot stuffing. This is why there's a
> registration in the real world I believe.
Did you just suggest that Christians voting against a BDSM group is
essentially ballot stuffing? Are you equating that with non-existent
voters voting, or voters voting twice? Sounds scary to me.
I have no problem with a votetaker (or whoever) determining that the
voters really exist, and were not coerced (e.g. threatened) or bribed to
vote a certain way. I have no problem with trying to ensure that voters
have at least seen the ballot, and are at least capable of operating
Usenet well enough to see it. My questions relate to restrictions on
announcement of the vote and/or campaigning, and how one could ever hope
to enforce rules which would require objectively defining campaigning or
determining whether a voter has a genuine interest in a particular
topic.
-- Dave
Robert E. Lewis
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
news:a1v9eg$n53$3...@dent.deepthot.org...
> In article <3C431992...@elepar.com>,
> David C. DiNucci <da...@elepar.com> wrote:
> >Jay Denebeim wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3C425650...@elepar.com>,
> >> David C. DiNucci <da...@elepar.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's where the line is drawn. It has to be done that way otherwise
> >> you get proponants going to inappropriate groups campaigning for 'no'
> >> votes.
>
> >(I guess you meant "opponents".) So? Are you suggesting that that
> >would be OK before the CFV, but not during? And your "inappropriate
> >group" comment suggests that it's inappropriate for some people to learn
> >of the vote? Is that also the proponent's job, to ensure that potential
> >NO voters do NOT learn of the vote?
>
> Well, it's never inappropriate for people who want to affect usenet to
> vote. What is inappropriate is for people to go out and bring people
> who have no interest in the process and no interest in a particular
> subject to come in for a vote.
>
> It's okay to vote 'no' if you think the group will hurt a group you
> like, it's misplaced in the hierarchy, its misnamed, the moderators
> are not good ones, or many other reasons. It's not okay to vote 'no'
> because you don't like the topic.
...
> >> Like... I can't think of a real one, say an opponant of a
> >> 'BDSM' newsgroup going to the christian newsgroups and playing the
> >> satan card.
> >
> >People are either allowed to vote NO, or they're not.
>
> They are. People arn't allowed to induce people to go out of their
> way to vote about a newsgroup they normally wouldn't care about
> though. There isn't a list of registered voters on usenet, perhaps
> there should be, but there's not. The vote is open to anyone, so
> there's attempts at ballot stuffing. This is why there's a
> registration in the real world I believe.
>
> >Put this all together, and it sounds like people are allowed (and maybe
> >expected) to vote NO for any old reason, or no reason at all, but YES
> >voters need to be prepared to justify their votes. I'm hoping someone
> >can convince me otherwise.
>
> Oh, no. Both come under fire.
>
> Jay
There appear to be consequences for the proponents of a group, if they
campaign for 'yes' votes during the CFV - the vote can be thrown, out if
that happens, can't it? But the only consequence to someone campaigning for
'no' votes that I've seen mentioned anywhere is that it might cause some
news.groups regulars to vote 'yes' in response - but if the potential 'no'
votes an opponent can get are more numerous than any reactionary 'yes'
votes, it seems a worthwhile thing for opponents to do.
If an opponent of the hypothetical 'BDSM' newsgroup posted to, say,
alt.christnet. evangelical and soc.religion.promisekeepers, claiming the
group is all about satanic homosexual pedophiles torturing children and
urging people to vote 'no' and it turned out that the failure of the
proposal lay in a large number of votes from people whose previous Usenet
participation appeared to be in those two newsgroups, there is no mechanism,
is there, for disregarding those votes, even though they are apparently the
result of inappropriate campaigning and what you have described as a "not
okay reason" for voting 'no.'
(I ask because I am peripherally involved in discussions about propsing a
moderated newsgroup where we do expect opponents to campaign in other places
against the proposal.)
Robert
Christopher Biow
>Dick Wisan wrote:
>> Are you sure it doesn't indicate that microsoft video game players are
>> perhaps web people, but not Usenet people?
>There clearly was a lot of Usenet posts about xbox in usenet and the alt
>group is active. So that unlikely the answer for low turn out.
I think that, as with my experiment a year ago with an overclocking
newsgroup CFV, there simply isn't likely to be much desire for a Big-8
newsgroup if an alt.* 'group is active and functioning well.
Given the dearth of CFVs lately, I'm happy that a few proponents are taking
their proposals to a vote, even if they fail badly. It gives an update on
these sorts of sentiments.
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
> news:a1v9eg$n53$3...@dent.deepthot.org...
>
> If an opponent of the hypothetical 'BDSM' newsgroup posted to, say,
> alt.christnet. evangelical and soc.religion.promisekeepers, claiming the
> group is all about satanic homosexual pedophiles torturing children and
> urging people to vote 'no' and it turned out that the failure of the
> proposal lay in a large number of votes from people whose previous Usenet
> participation appeared to be in those two newsgroups, there is no mechanism,
> is there, for disregarding those votes, even though they are apparently the
> result of inappropriate campaigning and what you have described as a "not
> okay reason" for voting 'no.'
For the record there is a big-8 group for BSDM. As for a vote that
gets unfair No votes, there is a discussion period and an appeal
process that can be invoked. No group is created (that is not bogus)
in the big-8 until Tale sends the control message, A vote that
recieves 5,000 Yes votes and 1 No vote might not get a control message
sent, a group that recieves 600 Yes votes anf 100,000 No votes might
get a control message. I do not know how often this would occur,
such a sitiation a situation of an appeal of Results has only occured
once in the last two years and tale went with UVV votetaker, though
two Yes votes would have passed the group. The last few years I
have not seen votes exceed about 500 on any proposal, most
votes ranging between 300 to 100 Yess and 50 to 7 Nos. I
collected some data on average votes but the data is almost
meanunhless as to how many votes are needed to pass a group. co,p.*
tends to get less no votes then rec.* for example. *.moderatot tend
to get more no votes then inmoderated.
>
> (I ask because I am peripherally involved in discussions about propsing a
> moderated newsgroup where we do expect opponents to campaign in other places
> against the proposal.)
This can become a problem. The RFD can be freely posted anywhere, the
CFV is resreicted as to where it can be posted. While normally a
proponent posts pointers, there is nothing to prevent oponents from
also providing pointers, then discussing why a No vote should be
issued. If you can tack such activity it might help with an appeal
if the group you propose fails as a result aparent bad faith No votes.
No votes generally that generally consided a good reason are.
1) bad name space for topic
2) bad or poorly written charter.
3) harm to existing groups
4) if moderated, untrustworthy moderatoes or poorly defined moderation
policies.
(people certainly can vote No for any reason and claim any of the above
as the reason, might even hold the opinion that most would not agree
with)
>
> Robert
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> I think that, as with my experiment a year ago with an overclocking
> newsgroup CFV, there simply isn't likely to be much desire for a Big-8
> newsgroup if an alt.* 'group is active and functioning well.
That certainly posible. There is a factor as well that these days it
appears that alt.* groups with a lot of user interest will be carried
nearly as well (perhaps better in rare cases) then big-8 groups.
alt.* groups are created by UNS just by somebody asking for the group,
UNS appears to not even look for a control message, one group I saw
created was ALT.<foo>.MODERARED (yes all caps) I could not find (nor
search much) a submission adress. More recently a typo group was
added based on a user request. I read giganes FAQ and ir appear they
do not care either about control messages for alt.* namespace.
>
> Given the dearth of CFVs lately, I'm happy that a few proponents are taking
> their proposals to a vote, even if they fail badly. It gives an update on
> these sorts of sentiments.
It is always hard to know why prople vore or choose not to. let alone
why a vote made is Yes or No. I can see a good alt.* group not voting
for a big-8 group that most likely will contain the same posts. Those
that would vote for a big-8 would I think tend to be those that did not
have access to a sister alt group or does not like the alt environment
for some other reason.
James Logajan
> There appear to be consequences for the proponents of a group, if they
> campaign for 'yes' votes during the CFV - the vote can be thrown, out if
> that happens, can't it?
Actually, so far as I understand them, the guidelines do NOT prohibit
campaigning during the vote, they only prohibit distribution of the CFV in
whole or in part. So if I give a whole slew of reasons to vote for/against
misc.fubar during the vote for misc.fubar, and urge you to vote YES/NO, so
long as I don't explain the MECHANICS on where to send your vote or how it
should be phrased, I have not violated the guidelines. The only catch is
rule 23, where it states vaguely: "Votes may be disqualified for violation
of the above points or for any other actions seriously detrimental to the
integrity of the vote, at the discretion of the votetaker." I am not sure
which way the weapon of discretion is being wielded these days or what is
considered seriously detrimental. One person's serious detriment is
another's inconsequential nit. The guidelines that votetakers and the n.a.n
moderator tend to follow may be found at:
Tim Skirvin
>I think that, as with my experiment a year ago with an overclocking
>newsgroup CFV, there simply isn't likely to be much desire for a Big-8
>newsgroup if an alt.* 'group is active and functioning well.
And this is why I think we need a second track to group creation.
If we want the Big-8 to remain useful, we have to keep up with the topics
that matter. If the users won't ask for it, we can at least build it for
them.
Leave RFD/CFVs for when the users want a different name than what
a committee would suggest, for moderation, and for group removals.
Russ Allbery
> And this is why I think we need a second track to group creation.
> If we want the Big-8 to remain useful, we have to keep up with the topics
> that matter. If the users won't ask for it, we can at least build it for
> them.
We've tried that and it didn't work very well.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
David C. DiNucci
>
> Robert E. Lewis wrote:
> > There appear to be consequences for the proponents of a group, if they
> > campaign for 'yes' votes during the CFV - the vote can be thrown, out if
> > that happens, can't it?
>
> Actually, so far as I understand them, the guidelines do NOT prohibit
> campaigning during the vote,
Although I agree that I cannot find a guideline anywhere that prohibits
campaigning during the vote, some votetakers evidently consider it
illegal, from all that I've heard or read regarding the
rec.music.experimental vote
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=985976817.22668%40isc.org). I
argue that it would be good for the votetakers to either express the
guidelines they are following, or to follow the guidelines that are
expressed, to help others to determine the potential ramifications of
their actions.
> they only prohibit distribution of the CFV in
> whole or in part.
The guidelines I read (to which you refer below) only appear to prohibit
the voting instructions from the CFV from being distributed, not the
other parts. In fact, if campaigning is allowed, it would seem a good
thing to me to allow parts of the charter to be circulated with it, as
the best campaign is probably one based on the facts of what is being
voted upon.
> So if I give a whole slew of reasons to vote for/against
> misc.fubar during the vote for misc.fubar, and urge you to vote YES/NO, so
> long as I don't explain the MECHANICS on where to send your vote or how it
> should be phrased, I have not violated the guidelines.
This matches my understanding of what the guidelines say, even if one
includes other parts of the CFV.
> The only catch is
> rule 23, where it states vaguely: "Votes may be disqualified for violation
> of the above points or for any other actions seriously detrimental to the
> integrity of the vote, at the discretion of the votetaker." I am not sure
> which way the weapon of discretion is being wielded these days or what is
> considered seriously detrimental. One person's serious detriment is
> another's inconsequential nit.
Also, as was discussed mid-comp.distributed vote, there are very few
"must"s or "may not"s in the "above points", making "violation" a tricky
word here.
> The guidelines that votetakers and the n.a.n
> moderator tend to follow may be found at:
>
> http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/big-eight.html
(These are the ones I have been using.)
Thanks,
-- Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David C. DiNucci Elepar Tools for portable grid,
da...@elepar.com http://www.elepar.com parallel, distributed, &
503-439-9431 Beaverton, OR 97006 peer-to-peer computing
Tim Skirvin
>> And this is why I think we need a second track to group creation.
>> If we want the Big-8 to remain useful, we have to keep up with the topics
>> that matter. If the users won't ask for it, we can at least build it for
>> them.
>We've tried that and it didn't work very well.
When was the last time? Things have changed in the last five
years.
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>> We've tried that and it didn't work very well.
> When was the last time? Things have changed in the last five
> years.
net.*.
And I don't think they actually have.
Tim Skirvin
>>> We've tried that and it didn't work very well.
>> When was the last time? Things have changed in the last five
>> years.
>net.*.
I think we're coming up on five years there... And I'd argue that
Usenet II tried to change more than just that - specifically, it restricts
membership. I'd argue that *that* is why it has failed, not because of its
group creation policies.
>And I don't think they actually have.
Oh? Perhaps the raw traffic count for the Big-8 hasn't changed,
or the number of users, or the total number of groups. But can you say
the same about the rest of Usenet? Are you really happy with this?
Jay Denebeim
>"Not okay to vote no". If there are no repurcussions for voting NO for
>these reasons, and no way to stop people from voting NO for those
>reasons in the first place, then I'm not sure what the statement means.
>Maybe it's just a personal opinion? If there are repurcussions, it's
>beginning to sound like a Usenet poll isn't so much of a poll as an
>invitation to ask the respondents more questions--even in light of John
>Stanley's wonderfully informative FAQ which specifically states that one
>shouldn't do that.
Well, that FAQ was the end result of a flame war, it doesn't really
mean anything other than he listed off every reason you could for
voting 'no' whether that's the right reason or not.
As far as repercussions go, if there's campaigning the perverted the
vote then the vote is run again. Repercussions depend on individual
cases.
>I'm trying to make the connection. You are saying that these NO votes
>were invalid because these people just didn't like the topic?
They were invalid because they voted 'no' because they didn't like the
topic. Not that the vote was actually invalidated, what actually
happened was the neonazi said 'oh, I was just kidding.' and withdrew
his proposal before things went very far. Oh, there were lots of
valid reasons to vote 'no', don't get me wrong, but the campaigning
was wrong. (every jewish newsgroup, scads of mailing lists,
etc. totally inappropriate)
> Or that they were valid because that is how you (would have) voted?
Well, in fact, I almost voted yes in part to counteract all of the
political 'no' votes that were obviously going to happen. I didn't
though because there were many technical flaws with the RFD. I really
would have felt bad voting yes since I am, after all, jewish, not that
that should make a difference.
>> ...Oh, then there was the
>> guy who offered physical bribes for 'no' votes (stamps IIRC). Didn't
>> work, that vote was canceled and so was his membership in his
>> professional organization, too bad it didn't put him out of business.
>
>I presume it would be pretty easy to make a guideline for this, too,
>with little if any dissension, if one doesn't already exist.
Yeah, you run the vote again, which is what happened in that case.
>> ... Aparently they
>> even dug some famous decomposing composers out of their graves to vote
>> for the group. ...
>
>So, in some of these cases, you have cited actions which are clearly
>against guidelines, or could easily be made against guidelines (e.g.
>bribery, coercion, fraud, etc.). My post, on the other hand, addressed
>the cases (such as some of the first you mentioned) which simply had to
>do with announcing the vote the wrong way or the wrong time or to the
>wrong people. Apples and oranges.
Well, like I said, in the 'no' case there's the rec.music.white-power,
and in the 'yes' case there's the montissari and there was some
religious group I can't recall the name of. Neither of those groups
passed even with the cheating.
>> They are. People arn't allowed to induce people to go out of their
>> way to vote about a newsgroup they normally wouldn't care about
>> though.
>"Induce" them by telling them about the vote and suggesting some reasons
>for voting NO (or, for that matter, YES)?
During the CFV stage, yes. During the RFD it's pretty much anything
goes.
>Did you just suggest that Christians voting against a BDSM group is
>essentially ballot stuffing? Are you equating that with non-existent
>voters voting, or voters voting twice? Sounds scary to me.
Yeah, that's pretty much what it is. I'm from Kansas, back when it
was a territory there was a vote on slavery. Some people went to
Missouri which was a slave state and convinced a bunch of people to go
to Kansas and vote in the referendum. In school this was the example
used for ballot stuffing. It's also identical to the situation I'm
talking about. Since the people in these groups normally don't hang
out in news.groups nor the BDSM groups they don't have any business
voting for that referendum. Like in the Kansas case there isn't
really any way to stop them, however if it becomes a problem we'll
have to go to registrating to vote. That's how they solve this
problem in the real world.
>My questions relate to restrictions on announcement of the vote
>and/or campaigning, and how one could ever hope to enforce rules
>which would require objectively defining campaigning or determining
>whether a voter has a genuine interest in a particular topic.
Oh, you do that by monitoring the newsgroups and mailing lists.
Whenever people have tried this someone has caught them at it. The
vote is re-run in that case.
Jay Denebeim
Robert E. Lewis <rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote:
>There appear to be consequences for the proponents of a group, if
>they campaign for 'yes' votes during the CFV - the vote can be
>thrown, out if that happens, can't it?
Yes, and they may have to wait six months to try again. That's what
happened in the padania case.
>But the only consequence to someone campaigning for 'no' votes that
>I've seen mentioned anywhere is that it might cause some news.groups
>regulars to vote 'yes' in response - but if the potential 'no' votes
>an opponent can get are more numerous than any reactionary 'yes'
>votes, it seems a worthwhile thing for opponents to do.
What happens in practice is if it's usually left up to the proponant.
Sometimes the UVV throw out the 'bad' votes, but if they don't the
proponant is allowed to decide whether to accept the vote or to revote
immediately.
>If an opponent of the hypothetical 'BDSM' newsgroup posted to, say,
>alt.christnet. evangelical and soc.religion.promisekeepers, claiming
>the group is all about satanic homosexual pedophiles torturing
>children and urging people to vote 'no' and it turned out that the
>failure of the proposal lay in a large number of votes from people
>whose previous Usenet participation appeared to be in those two
>newsgroups, there is no mechanism, is there, for disregarding those
>votes, even though they are apparently the result of inappropriate
>campaigning and what you have described as a "not okay reason" for
>voting 'no.'
If there's illegal campaigning on the part of an opponant (note: this
hasn't happened in my memory, so this is theoretical. Although the
bribe ploy was amusing, but different.) the vote would probably be run
again. Or tale could decide that a fair vote isn't possible and if
there were enough yes votes go ahead and create the group.
>(I ask because I am peripherally involved in discussions about
>propsing a moderated newsgroup where we do expect opponents to
>campaign in other places against the proposal.)
Note, voting against a newsgroup because you don't like a topic is
absolutely not okay. If you go and find a bunch of like minded people
to vote against a topic because you don't like it, you will be
stopped. Those numbers show up easily in a vote so don't expect to
get away with it.
Usenet is content neutral. *any* topic is fine as far as usenet is
concerned. (posting on that topic could get your arrested in some
countries who don't read their constitutions very well, not that I'm
naming names or anything.) Trying to derail that process is only
going to piss off the people who made this thing for everybody.
Jay Denebeim
James Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>The only catch is rule 23, where it states vaguely: "Votes may be
>disqualified for violation of the above points or for any other
>actions seriously detrimental to the integrity of the vote, at the
>discretion of the votetaker." I am not sure which way the weapon of
>discretion is being wielded these days or what is considered
>seriously detrimental.
That would depend. The purpose of the vote in usenet is to assertain
interest in the group and to make sure creation of the group is not
likely to cause trouble to usenet as a whole. A vote that for
whatever reason is perverted from that purpose would be considered
'detrimental'. The language isn't clear because both proponants and
opponants have been very um, creative at perverting the vote in their
direction.
Russ Allbery
> Oh? Perhaps the raw traffic count for the Big-8 hasn't changed, or the
> number of users, or the total number of groups. But can you say the
> same about the rest of Usenet?
Those aren't substantive changes anyway.
I don't believe that the way in which people interact with Usenet has
substantively changed.
> Are you really happy with this?
Attempts to answer that question and the discussions that result from it
are a waste of time. If you have an improvement, make it happen.
Otherwise, talking about the way things could or should be on that sort of
grand philosophical scale is essentially purposeless.
Tim Skirvin
>I don't believe that the way in which people interact with Usenet has
>substantively changed.
Possibly true for Usenet as a whole. I do think that the way that
people are interesting with the Big-8 has changed.
>> Are you really happy with this?
>Attempts to answer that question and the discussions that result from it
>are a waste of time. If you have an improvement, make it happen.
I either can't, or I am already doing so, depending on your view
of matters. The changes I'm talking about are Big-8 centric, and
therefore stop at...well, here (amongst other places). Where else to talk
in a pre-pre-RFD stage about what kinds of changes we should make to the
Big-8, and how to go about doing it?
I'm *not* happy with the state of the Big-8. It's not all bad,
and I'm not convinced I could make something better (been there), but I
still think some things can be done to make it better...
>Otherwise, talking about the way things could or should be on that sort of
>grand philosophical scale is essentially purposeless.
So let's talk about it on a practical level. What do you think
would make the Big-8 better, that we could do with the efforts of a few
people and the approval of tale?
Joe Bernstein
by Jay Denebeim in this thread, but also by others. The single thing
that most stuns me is quoted here, but I may not find everything else
in the post that I'm actually following up to that needs answering (I
read a bunch of posts elsewhere that seem not to be at Google, so...).
dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote in message
news:<a1v9eg$n53$3...@dent.deepthot.org>...
> It's okay to vote 'no' if you think the group will hurt a group you
> like, it's misplaced in the hierarchy, its misnamed, the moderators
> are not good ones, or many other reasons. It's not okay to vote 'no'
> because you don't like the topic.
Oh, good, this *is* in this post. So to my main point:
John Stanley's FAQ is *completely* right about what this sort of talk
boils down to.
Let me be clear. I *do* think social pressure against votes for
"inappropriate" reasons is a Good Thing. But I *don't* think the
routine in news.groups of talking about it as though there were
anything *but* social pressure involved is at all a Good Thing. It
creates false impressions that can then become deadly when reality
contradicts them.
(Does anyone who finds my attitudes towards tale oppressive remember
that what set me off in the first place was the coincident failure of
soc.culture.sindhi and pocket veto of rec.arts.anime? I had false
impressions, and became lastingly bitter when reality contradicted
them. How many of me does news.groups need?)
> The only one of these that's still coming to mind is the
> rec.music.white-power group. This was a group proposed by some neo
> nazis. It caused a huge amount of controversy even to the point that
> 'all things considered' interviewed both Dave Lawrence and the
> proponant. There were over 20,000 no votes to this. It was an f*ing
> circus. There's still e-mail floating around where people are given
> instructions how to vote 'no'. As far as I know the poor UVV is still
> getting no votes. (he quit over this BTW). Oh, then there was the
> guy who offered physical bribes for 'no' votes (stamps IIRC). Didn't
> work, that vote was canceled and so was his membership in his
> professional organization, too bad it didn't put him out of business.
In other posts, some subsequent, you've more strongly claimed that
rec.music.white-power is the poster child for inappropriate NO votes.
This has the effect of making it look like the system has never
failed, has never shot down a worthwhile group, and that is WRONG.
Does your server carry any of:
soc.culture.kashmir
soc.culture.tibet
soc.culture.sindhi
?
No?
Then I submit that inappropriate NO votes *have* kept groups from
being created, and repeatedly so. These aren't the only examples;
these are just off the top of my head.
Yes, this problem is largely concentrated in soc.culture.*. You are
welcome to tell the Mormons, the Jews for Jesus, or the Ahmadiyyas all
about how religious groups never get unreasonable opposition - oh, and
by the way, are you one of the *many* non-pagan news.groups readers,
like me, who used the inappropriate campaigning against
soc.religion.pagan as an excuse to vote YES?
It's true that the BDSM group didn't get a torrent of NOs, and I still
don't really know why it didn't. But other than that, you've been
rewriting history here. For years, the Big 8's single most widely
acknowledged newsgroup creation problem was *precisely* its inability
to handle controversial newsgroups' votes. It's only the abrupt
disappearance of all kinds of votes that has allowed anyone to forget
this.
(And with apologies to David DiNucci, no, votetakers' ISPs going
bankrupt has never even made the top ten list.)
> >People are either allowed to vote NO, or they're not.
>
> They are. People arn't allowed to induce people to go out of their
> way to vote about a newsgroup they normally wouldn't care about
> though. There isn't a list of registered voters on usenet, perhaps
> there should be, but there's not. The vote is open to anyone, so
> there's attempts at ballot stuffing. This is why there's a
> registration in the real world I believe.
>
> >Put this all together, and it sounds like people are allowed (and maybe
> >expected) to vote NO for any old reason, or no reason at all, but YES
> >voters need to be prepared to justify their votes. I'm hoping someone
> >can convince me otherwise.
>
> Oh, no. Both come under fire.
Yes, but the fact remains that it's *much* harder to solicit
inappropriate YES votes than NO ones, precisely because YES
campaigning can kill the group but NO campaigning cannot create it.
The only vote I know of where tale overruled the votetaker was to
create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir, despite the voluminous
evidence of inappropriate YES campaigning in that vote. Since then,
as far as I know, tale has not intervened. Individual votetakers have
permitted some proponent campaigning that I thought more than a little
smelly, and have objected to other such campaigning - the
fat-acceptance and SETI groups come to mind right off the bat, but I
really don't remember which way the decision even went re SETI. I
seem to recall that just when I arrived here, inappropriate proponent
campaigning was forcing a revote in the soc.culture.pakistan re-org,
but I don't know the details, and can't think *offhand* of any other
revote that was actually prompted by proponent behaviour.
But NO campaigns have rarely elicited anything at all. The stamps
re-org is the only example that I can remember, although I'll admit I
haven't paid attention to every vote by a long shot.
So to return to my point. I turned against tale at the point when he
had taken decisive action to block an RFD to re-rename
rec.arts.anime.misc - at that time, I saw the RFD as fundamentally
frivolous, and I still don't know how I'd vote, but anyway, tale *did*
something! And that something was to block a frivolous RFD, *NOT* any
attempt to solve the glaring problem of excessive NO votes,
instantiated yet again, at that moment, by the failure of
soc.culture.sindhi. I had actually *written* to tale about sc.sindhi,
not just fulminated in public, and received no answer. If I hadn't
come here with illusions, about tale, about the possibility of change,
about how the Big 8 was supposed to work, I would not have become so
bitter.
Bard has also posted in this thread in ways that recall what you're
saying. Bard, I too wrote a news.groups FAQ. But I wrote another FAQ
too, a "Reasons for Voting FAQ", and I posted it a few times. I
really believed that stuff then. You will be better off if you
emulate me no more than you already have, if you resist any urge to
conclude that the claims people make in news.groups about why votes
should be cast have any relationship with what the guidelines, and the
people who adjudicate those guidelines, actually do.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and accounting clerk j...@sfbooks.com
<http://turing.postilion.org/these-survive/>
Russ Allbery
> So let's talk about it on a practical level. What do you think
> would make the Big-8 better, that we could do with the efforts of a few
> people and the approval of tale?
I don't really have lists of things like that any more. Building and
defending them ended up draining away energy that I could use to attack
more practical problems, and building those sorts of lists isn't actually
my strong point.
Jay Denebeim
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>In other posts, some subsequent, you've more strongly claimed that
>rec.music.white-power is the poster child for inappropriate NO votes.
>This has the effect of making it look like the system has never
>failed, has never shot down a worthwhile group, and that is WRONG.
Actually I said that was the only one I remember.
>Does your server carry any of:
>
>soc.culture.kashmir
>soc.culture.tibet
>soc.culture.sindhi
>
>?
>
>No?
>
>Then I submit that inappropriate NO votes *have* kept groups from
>being created, and repeatedly so. These aren't the only examples;
>these are just off the top of my head.
These are *old*. All of those votes are from before my time in
news.groups. Can you point to one that's happened in say the last
five years?
>Yes, this problem is largely concentrated in soc.culture.*. You are
>welcome to tell the Mormons, the Jews for Jesus, or the Ahmadiyyas all
>about how religious groups never get unreasonable opposition - oh, and
>by the way, are you one of the *many* non-pagan news.groups readers,
>like me, who used the inappropriate campaigning against
>soc.religion.pagan as an excuse to vote YES?
I actually don't recall, but I know I have under other circumstances.
Cheryl BTW is pagan so I'm sure she voted yes regardless.
Oh and as far as the jews for jesus goes I don't recall any
unreasonable opposition. What I do recall is opposition to placing it
anywhere in the jewish hierarchies since this is after all a christian
sect. The mormans did have some problems, but they got their group
IIRC. The j4j did not because they wanted a certain position in the
newsgroups listing and they wern't going to get it. If it was under
soc.religion.christian it wouldn't have had opposition.
>It's true that the BDSM group didn't get a torrent of NOs, and I still
>don't really know why it didn't. But other than that, you've been
>rewriting history here. For years, the Big 8's single most widely
>acknowledged newsgroup creation problem was *precisely* its inability
>to handle controversial newsgroups' votes. It's only the abrupt
>disappearance of all kinds of votes that has allowed anyone to forget
>this.
Actually I think things have gotten better since you left. Remember
you've been gone quite awhile, like two years. I'm not re-writing
history, as I said, not much is coming to mind, that doesn't mean it
didn't happen. It means I couldn't remember anything. Not surprising
really it's been a rough year or so... Lesse, heart attack, father
dying, losing job. Yeah, things have not been going too good for me
lately, not something condusive to memory.
>The only vote I know of where tale overruled the votetaker was to
>create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir, despite the voluminous
>evidence of inappropriate YES campaigning in that vote. Since then,
>as far as I know, tale has not intervened.
That was before my time. Since then there have been votes that were
held back until tale made a decision. So, there isn't any way to know
whether he would have overturned the decision of the UVV or not, they
didn't make a decision.
>Individual votetakers have permitted some proponent campaigning that
>I thought more than a little smelly, and have objected to other such
>campaigning - the fat-acceptance and SETI groups come to mind right
>off the bat, but I really don't remember which way the decision even
>went re SETI.
SETI was given the go ahead. It was not a point to the CFV it was a
pointer to nan, so the users would still have to use usenet to vote,
so it was okay.
The fat acceptance one I don't remember mostly because I plonked John
Stanley and thought the whole issue was absurd in the first place.
The group was created and is very healthy.
piranha
>
> Note, voting against a newsgroup because you don't like a topic is
> absolutely not okay.
"not ok" as in "socially not acceptable by most people in
news.groups", you mean.
there is no way to read people's minds when they vote "no", and
the "no" vote of somebody who doesn't like the topic is as valid
when it reaches the vote counter as the "no" vote of the wet
blanket, or as the "no" vote of the person who doesn't trust the
modertor, or as the "no" vote of those who think the name of the
group is a travesty.
the votetaker doesn't inquire why people vote "no".
> If you go and find a bunch of like minded people
> to vote against a topic because you don't like it, you will be
> stopped. Those numbers show up easily in a vote so don't expect to
> get away with it.
in a pig's eye. wouldn't _that_ be nice. no more ethnic or
religious strife over newsgroups! _sometimes_ those people show
up and it becomes clearly obvious that negative campaigning
happened in a way the votetaker can invalidate. but all too often
that is not true.
this is my primary reason for wanting to do away with "no" votes
for unmoderated group creation. they are sadly misused IMO.
--
-piranha
Jay Denebeim
piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>> If you go and find a bunch of like minded people
>> to vote against a topic because you don't like it, you will be
>> stopped. Those numbers show up easily in a vote so don't expect to
>> get away with it.
>
> in a pig's eye. wouldn't _that_ be nice. no more ethnic or
> religious strife over newsgroups! _sometimes_ those people show
> up and it becomes clearly obvious that negative campaigning
> happened in a way the votetaker can invalidate. but all too often
> that is not true.
We'll see. I'd say the detection has been pretty good the last
several years. Can you point to one that happened in the last say 3
years that was not detected?
> this is my primary reason for wanting to do away with "no" votes
> for unmoderated group creation. they are sadly misused IMO.
Well, I still like the registering to vote thing, but I'd rather get
checkgroups working before thinking about that.
Adam H. Kerman
> And this is why I think we need a second track to group creation.
>If we want the Big-8 to remain useful, we have to keep up with the topics
>that matter. If the users won't ask for it, we can at least build it for
>them.
I'll bite: What topic that matters isn't generally discussed on Usenet?
Adam H. Kerman
>No votes generally that generally consided a good reason are.
>1) bad name space for topic
>2) bad or poorly written charter.
>3) harm to existing groups
>4) if moderated, untrustworthy moderatoes or poorly defined moderation
>policies.
I raised this issue a few months ago. #3 could relate to proposals to split
existing groups that lack a consensus among the users. Nearly everyone
suggested that the consensus doesn't matter; only the vote is relevant.
Users' needs not to have their group disrupted should be considered.
If you're writing this down, Tim: Your, uh, executive committee could examine
the debate in the affected group if a consensus is in doubt, to see if the
objections raised are seriously held or merely personal bias. It could either
encourage the proponent to compromise with the opponents (likely reach an
agreement as to which narrow topics would stay and which would move). The big
stick it would have is holding off the CFV till both sides compromise.
Or, it could examine the existing group to determine if there is a good reason
for the split (such as narrow topic overwhelms discussion of other topics),
see if there is a consensus to split the group, and then recommend that the
newgroup be sent without a vote.
In either case, perhaps the formal RFD and discussion of splits could take
place only in the affected groups and not in news.groups.