RESULT: soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir passes
David C Lawrence
This decision was not made lightly; none of the possible resolutions
to this unusual vote were completely satisfactory.
Consider that the "Guidelines for Usenet Group Creation" contains the
following paragraph:
Any group creation request which follows these guidelines to a
successful result should be honored, and any request which fails to
follow these procedures or to obtain a successful result from doing
so should be dropped, except under extraordinary circumstances. The
reason these are called guidelines and not absolute rules is that it
is not possible to predict in advance what "extraordinary
circumstances" are or how they might arise.
By receiving over four times as many as votes as any proposal has seen
before, and ten times as many votes as usual, this vote can clearly be
declared, "extraordinary." For its statistical uniqueness alone I
have the grounds to completely invalidate the vote and insist another
be held.
Unfortunately, there is little practical point of having another vote.
Yes, massive numbers of voters in this proposal were ill-informed
about what they were voting about; however, we have never been able to
enforce voting according to the intent of what group creation votes
are trying to measure. Will those 23,670 YES voters really use the
group? Doubtful. But will it be active? Almost certainly, if not
really in the way the charter for the group describes. Were the 1,803
NO voters all opposing it because of namespace issues? To some
extent, yes, but based on my non-scientific gut-feeling about this, I
don't think most of them were doing so based on an unbiased
consideration of the naming issues. In any event, the group creation
process has traditionally been very bad at directly addressing
namespace management issues.
It should be noted that I did my own review of the votes and did not
obviously see any large scale automated generation of votes, at least
not that would have made any difference in the overall poll. They
really do appear to be almost all sent in by individuals.
Ultimately the question I see is, "If this vote were held again, is
there any realistic chance of having a more meaningful outcome?" I
have almost no confidence that it will. At the heart of this Usenet
controversy is a political conflict that is essentially between
Pakistan and India. One reference I have indicates that India has at
least eight times the population of Pakistan; as a national issue for
both, the Pakistanis lose in any vaguely democratic situation because
they are far outnumbered, just like the Ahmadis, Tibetans and Slavic
Macedonians were in other controversial Usenet votes before them.
The significant precedent problem with this decision is, of course,
that it appears to legitimize rampant campaigning for a group. This
is an issue that I can't hope to address fully here, in an already
long message, but it deserves some comment. Some degree of
campaigning has historically had its legitimate place in the group
creation process. It is why the Guidelines say that the proposal
should be sent to groups and mailing lists that have any relation to
the proposed topic. Though it results in dilution of the significance
of vote results, at least as concerns what these votes were originally
designed to measure, the basic methodology of these self-selecting
polls is already inherently flawed despite it. To put a gag order on
advocates of a group can result in it not getting enough respondents
to support it even if there are a lot of them out there, or it gives
opponents free reign to campaign against it or to get a vote
invalidated by actually campaigning for it. To gag all campaigning,
for or against, similarly gives people opposed to a proposal a tool
with which to derail it. By no means does this mean that rampant
campaigning should be the order of the day. It is the exception, and
proponents who do it still run the risk of having their votes invalidated.
The whole process is ripe for change, in more of a way than I think
current ideas in news.groups are really addressing. To some degree
they might help a little in the short term, but some lateral thinking
is needed to really get past the problems that the Guidelines have
traditionally been so poor at handling. (This lateral thinking will,
of course, get us into a whole new set of problems. Hooray.) Over
the next few months I will be finalizing and publicly presenting a
proposal for some relatively radical changes to the process. In the
meantime, the UVV will do the best they can within the current
framework to address the problems that campaigning causes.
It should be crystal clear that my decision is not made based on my
own biases regarding the proposal. I argued at length with the
proponent of this group, trying to broker a compromise that didn't
have the appearance of using the Usenet group namespace for political
purposes. (Whether the proponent himself is guilty of that is not an
accusation I am making.) I still believe the final proposal has some
significant faults that make it a poorly named group.
Despite our differences, I want to publicly acknowledge some
upstanding acts on the part of Shrisha Rao, the lead proponent of the
group. Before the vote ended he contacted us offering to withdraw the
proposal if there was vote fraud, saying that he would not object to
any course of action that Mr. Lavallee felt necessary to resolve the
vote. He did so of his own mind, with no solicitation for such a
statement from anyone in group-advice or the UVV. He has also been
reasonably cooperative during the period of the review of this vote.
Finally, Warren Lavallee, the votetaker, should not be decried for his
attempt to make some sense of the extraordinary turnout by sampling a
percentage of the votes to theoretically eliminate the influences of
campaigning. There was rational thinking behind his methodology, even
if that methodology proved to be flawed in practice. He did what he
did in good faith, with no hint of bias, and the people who stridently
accused him of shady dealings should be ashamed of themselves for
their own prejudices. Mr. Lavallee is an upstanding citizen who has
graciously provided his vote counting services for dozens of Usenet
groups; he is to be commended for his altruistic work on behalf of the
net.
David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Vote of thanks
Sincere thanks for his analysis and final and
pleasant decision.
Sincere thanks to Warren Lavelle the vote taker
for handling the record settingly huge vote. My
sincere apologies on behalf of every one and
my self for criticism of the algorithm he used
in the analysis and any emotional outbursts.
Sincere thanks to Shrisha Rao, the reasoned proponent
who is the father of sci.jk!
thanks to the news groups regulars who supported the
cause through reasoned analysis.
thanks to voters who voiced their concern on the
preliminary results to draw the attention of
people on news.groups
thanks to voters.
and thanks to opponents who actually are the real
cause for this massive turn out.
thanks to the supporters who have spent their
huge time investments on the arguemnts.
and finally the real big thanks to http:/dejanews.com
gopal
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Vote of thanks
Sincere thanks to Warren Lavelle the vote taker
for handling the record settingly huge vote. My
*sincere* apologies on behalf of every one and
my self for *hot* criticism of the algorithm he used
in the analysis and any some unpleasant *emotional*
outbursts. i did acknowledge earlier, that he was
sincere in his approach, as exhibited his willingness
to give full details of algorithm, as well as test
running of the algorithm on other recently held
vote, and presenting the results there of. yet,
expressing thanks, i admit, will not take away
the pain he suffered by ccassional epithets hurled
at him. hope, being a UVV he will sure have a greater
resilience than average "us".
Sincere thanks to David Lawrence for his analysis
and final and pleasant decision.
Sincere thanks to Shrisha Rao, the reasoned proponent
who is the father of sci.jk!
thanks to the news groups regulars who supported the
cause through reasoned analysis.
thanks to the voters who voiced their concern on the
preliminary results to draw the attention of
people on news.groups
thanks to the voters.
and *special* thanks to opponents who actually
contributed to some of this massive turn out.
thanks to the supporters who have spent their
huge time investments on the arguemnts.
thanks for those sensible individuals who might not
have realized what kashmir means to indians, but who
made snicere efforts to tone down the heated arguments
on usenet, by taking the conversation to emails.
and finally the *real* big thanks to http:/dejanews.com
gopal
Kenneth Arromdee
David C Lawrence <newgroup...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
>The whole process is ripe for change, in more of a way than I think
>current ideas in news.groups are really addressing. To some degree
>they might help a little in the short term, but some lateral thinking
>is needed to really get past the problems that the Guidelines have
>traditionally been so poor at handling.
What we _need_ is a way to create groups with multiple names; either by having
one internal worldwide name that nobody sees and a separate list of external
names, or else by having multiple worldwide names for the same group.
Either one will require changes to lots of news software. The inertia of the
net is incredibly great--the same patterns of not paying attention that let
binary and spam cancels be "accepted" will be an enormous barrier to this
change.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Kermit the Pig?!?!?!?!" -- The Muppet Show
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Vote of thanks
Sincere thanks to Warren Lavelle the vote taker
for handling the record settingly huge vote. My
*sincere* apologies on behalf of every one and
my self for *hot* criticism of the algorithm he used
in the analysis and some unpleasant *emotional*
outbursts. i did acknowledge earlier, that he was
sincere in his approach, as exhibited by his willingness
to give full details of algorithm, as well as test
running of the algorithm on other recently held
vote, and presenting the results there of. yet,
expressing thanks, i admit, will not take away
the pain he suffered by occassional epithets hurled
at him. hope, being a UVV he will sure have a greater
resilience than average "us".
Sincere thanks to David Lawrence for his analysis
and final and pleasant decision.
Sincere thanks to Shrisha Rao, the reasoned proponent
with clean hands and great skills at communicating his
views, and who is the father of sci.jk!
thanks to the news groups regulars who supported the
cause through reasoned analysis.
thanks to the voters who voiced their concern on the
preliminary results to draw the attention of
people on news.groups
thanks to the voters.
and *special* thanks to opponents who actually
contributed to some of this massive turn out.
thanks to the supporters who have spent their
huge time investments on the arguemnts.
thanks for those sensible individuals who might not
have realized what kashmir means to indians , but who
S. Varshney
Hi, can you post the results on the news.groups newsgroup atleast, or a
ftp site somewhere? Thanks very much for your time.
Regards,
Dhruba Chakravarti
: I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
: Unfortunately, there is little practical point of having another vote.
: David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups
Dear Mr. David Lawrence:
Thank you for conducting the recount and letting the votes stand. You
deserve my sincere appreciation for doing this. I read your candid statements
about the core of this issue, and I felt that you have done your best to be
impartial. However, I was not very happy to read that you attribute this
outcome simply to the numerical advantage we Indians have. I believe that an
equally important issue is the moral positions that people from both countries
take on Jammu and Kashmir. I assure you, that we are not so immature
that we will rally behind anything and everything.
You are of course free to not see any tint of morality, and you are most
welcome to share your views. I will however, continue to differ.
With best regards,
Dhruba.
Shrisha Rao
As the proponent of the newsgroup, I would like to thank all those who
participated in the long-drawn exercise. In particular, I would like to
thank Russ Allbery of Group Advice for his interest in the proposal, and
his sincere interest in doing the best; that we persist in holding
opposing views about the appropriateness of the newsgroup's name does
not lessen my esteem for him, and I have (I hope) kept my distance from
all who have falsely accused him of ulterior motives. I would also like
to thank David Lawrence, who has given of his own time quite selflessly
for this proposal, as indeed he has for thousands of others.
Warren Lavallee did what was essentially an outstanding job as
vote-taker; with the benefit of hindsight, we have all decided that we
are smarter than he and would not to do what he did, but few of us, I'm
sure, can honestly assert that we would have thought so beforehand.
There were many others who gave of their time and skill quite freely,
not the least of them being George Herbert and Joe Bernstein; the
latter's sage advice after the fiasco of the vote was often
misunderstood, which again was unfortunate. Mr. Bernstein has shown a
rare example of an interested outsider critiquing a proposal skillfully
and impartially, and even while disagreeing with his views, I must
thank him for his unusual ability to avoid losing himself in irrelevant
personal gripes and flame-wars, as happened all too often in the course
of this proposal.
Among supporters of the Group, Vivek Pai and Gopal Ramana have done an
outstanding job, not so much because of their steadfast support, as in
keeping an unfailing upright moral position and not allowing themselves
the luxury of even the least bit of improper conduct. If only all those
who supported the newsgroup had been of the same moral caliber as these
two, the whole story would have been different. Raj Bhatnagar played a
commendable role in supporting the newsgroup during the RFD discussion,
and my special thanks to him for it.
Finally, I would like to thank all those who voted for the newsgroup;
I am certain that in spite of whatever misgivings others may have, it
will turn out to be a fine newsgroup, and a much-needed addition to
the Net's resources.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Proponent, soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir
Vivek Sadananda Pai
I would like to thank everyone involved with this proposal at
any stage of the process, and I would like to especially thank
all of those who have taken a lot of heat (and will take a lot
of heat, no doubt) over the various outcomes of this proposal.
I would like to thank those people who rationally argued for
or against this proposal, and for those who were dominated by
their baser instincts, I hope you have the honor to apologize
to those who had to bear the brunt of your posts.
I am sure that this outcome will be debated at length over the
next few days, and I'm already seeing the self-proclaimed pundits
(no pun intended) spreading their spin on who's evil, who's partial,
what this means, etc., etc. I am sorry that those who gave and
continue to give a lot of their time to a rather thankless task
have to put up with this sort of gratuitous nonsense.
As a vocal supporter of this proposal, I am obviously pleased
with this decision, and I hope that this much-needed newsgroup
serves a meaningful role on Usenet.
Finally, I thank everyone who spent much time working on this
issue after the initial results were posted. I hope that the new
system David Lawrence presents will make your lives easier in
the future, and once again, my thanks for the time you've invested
on this matter.
-Vivek
Atri Indiresan
list of voters? I think a 5 day scrutiny period should still be
required.
Thanks,
Atri
Russ Allbery
> Thank you for conducting the recount
There was no recount. Those were the raw voting totals provided by
Mr. Lavallee.
> However, I was not very happy to read that you attribute this outcome
> simply to the numerical advantage we Indians have. I believe that an
> equally important issue is the moral positions that people from both
> countries take on Jammu and Kashmir.
The fact that you consider the naming of a Usenet group to be an
appropriate forum in which to campaign for one view of the nationality of
Kashmir indicates to me that your "moral position" is rather lacking in
morals. I find it highly amusing that you would be so polite now that
you've gotten your own way.
> I assure you, that we are not so immature that we will rally behind
> anything and everything.
No, but you're quite happy to use your superior numbers as a voting block
to force your view of the political situation on the rest of the world.
Bravo, my dear sir, you succeeded. I hope you're pleased.
I fully support David Lawrence's solution to this as probably the only
viable one, but that in no way diminishes my disgust at the dishonor with
which some parties in this debate have conducted themselves.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Sunondo Ghosh
the vote on scij-k, and after reading David C Lawrence's discussion
of the final decision, I think there is a need to understand the
Kashmir problem from a neutral viewpoint. The following CNN interview
gives a neutral background to the Kashmir problem, and explains why
Indians feel so strongly about this issue.
Regards,
Sunondo
Kashmir Specialist William Clark William Clark
Japan Chair, Senior Adviser on Asia, CSIS, William Clark is senior
adviser on Asia for the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. He served as the assistant secretary of state for East Asia
and Pacific affairs from 1992 through 1993.
He has held the rank of career minister in the foreign service of the
United States and a variety of senior diplomatic positions, including
ambassador to India and principal deputy assistant secretary of state
for East Asian and Pacific affairs. Clark is a graduate of San Jose
State University and the National War College.
_________________________________________________________________
Specialist Interview
CNN: Kashmir is interesting because when Britain pulled out of India,
it left two thirds of it belonging to India and the remaining to
Pakistan. Why is that land so valuable to both countries?
Clark: When Britain left, most of the princely states, as they were
called, had agreed to accede to India. Kashmir had not. The ruler of
Kashmir was still wavering as to whether he wanted to try and maintain
its independence or not. So when the British left you had two new
states, Pakistan and India. Forces from Pakistan, some say from
Afghanistan as well, came into Kashmir and got very far before the
Indian forces arrived. And the reason the Indian forces arrived so
late was that the ruler called to Indians that I need help, I'm being
invaded. And the Indian government said: "We'd love to help you if
you. If you were part of India we would."
I think it took three calls before he decided he would be part of
India. So he accede to India, but under pressure from Pakistan. At the
end of that, there were parts of Kashmir that were occupied by
Pakistani forces. That's what's known today in Pakistan as free
Kashmir, and in India it's POK-Pakistan, occupied Kashmir. So, it was
indecision on the part of the ruler. You had a ruler who was a Hindu
and a population that had a large proportion of Muslims in it. It's a
complicated state, and still is today.
It's really three different segments. The valley we talk about most of
the time, the valley of Kashmir is Muslim, but the lower part of it,
the southern part of the state, Jammu (the name of the state is really
the state of Jammu & Kashmir) is Hindu. There is a part up to the
northeast that is Buddhist. So it is not simply the Muslims in the
valley, but the others as well. Of course, independence fighters
always fight for all of it, so the Muslims would like to have the
Buddhist and Hindu parts as well and they say they will be happy to
have all the people stay, as long as they understand who is running
the state.
CNN: So religion is religion is an integral element of this conflict?
Clark: Oh, it's sewn throughout the dispute, and it's fundamental to
the view of both governments about themselves. India sees itself as a
secular state, has a very complex religious mix within the country.
Therefore, if Kashmir were to leave, it would say that the Muslims
couldn't exist within this secular state. Yet India has enough of a
Muslim population to qualify as the second-largest Muslim country in
the world. Pakistan, on the other hand, is a theocratic state. It is
an Islamic state. Therefore, it sees Kashmir, or at least the Muslim
portion of Kashmir, coming to Pakistan as a validation for its belief
that a uniform religious state is a better way to organize.
CNN: Has the religion fueled the conflict?
Clark: Well, fuel it in a way that it is the Muslim part of the
population of Jammu&Kashmir that is pressing for either association
with Pakistan or independence from India. It's not, it's certainly not
the Hindus nor the Buddhists. Religion is a part of it.
CNN: What would independence mean for Kashmir?
Clark: Independence would mean a very difficult time for Kashmir. It
has no outlet to the sea. It would be totally surrounded by Pakistan,
India and China. And what people forget is that part of old Kashmir is
occupied by China, which is where the road from China to Pakistan
crosses. So, it would be a very difficult geo-political situation for
Kashmir and unless all the states were cooperating with it, it would
be very hard to exist.
CNN: After all the fighting over this land, will there ever be a
resolution?
Clark: Well, I think the resolution to it will have to come from
engaging the people again in a feeling they have responsibility for
the decisions made for them. The Pakistanis have involved themselves
in events in Kashmir. The Indian government has handled it poorly. If
you go back to the original accession agreement, Kashmir was a
quasi-autonomous state. Had their own customs. Had their own rules.
Indians couldn't own land in Kashmir under article 370 of the Indian
constitution, special category for Kashmir.
Most of that has been eroded. And the Indians have played with the
democratic process in Kashmir as well, to maintain control for the
Congress Party. This is not the way you build a strong democratic
support. So, they've got to get back to elections and responsibility
in Kashmir for its own fate. After the recent fire at the shrine, the
Indian government has again postponed elections, and will continue
with what's called President's Rule, which is rule from Delhi.
CNN: Are elections planned?
Clark: Planned, but postponed. I think they have to play out at some
point. But it is difficult to know. It's not easy to do and you have
to have someone who is willing to participate to start and that's the
problem.
CNN: Can the UN play a role in this?
Clark: I think the United Nations can, but it's not a peacekeeping
role. The United Nations are there. There is a UN force that
technically controls part of the border on the Pakistani side. The
Indians have never been willing to have it. But, these are two large
countries with significant numbers of troops along the border. It's a
terrible place to keep troops. Some of the outposts are at 18,000
feet. They lose a lot of young men from frostbite and high altitude
sickness. It is an expensive operation to keep this border going at
the present state and neither country can afford it.
CNN: There's also an arms build-up on both sides.
Clark: An arms build-up on both sides, but in world terms it's not
that great. I mean we were involved in it until the nuclear question
came up with F-16's, and Harpoons, and P3's and now the President is
now trying to resolve the cut off in arms to Pakistan. We cut off arms
they'd already paid for and to resolve it by providing everything but
the F-16's, and then trying to sell the F-16's which have been
produced and are out in the Arizona desert, to somebody and refunding
the money. Whether or not that will work I don't know, but it is a
fact they paid for it and we didn't deliver.
CNN: What's life like for the people there? What are they going
through as they try to live this conflict out?
Clark: Well, life is increasingly difficult. Kashmir used to depend a
great deal on tourism. The results of this prolonged instability have
been that tourism industry's infrastructure has deteriorated a lot.
That's been happening for a long time. Life in Kashmir is fairly grim
these days.
CNN: Do you see any prospect in the near future for a resolution?
Clark: Near future? Near future to me is within a year and I don't see
it happening.
CNN: How about in the long term?
Clark: Long term it has to. I mean, you can't keep going that way. The
Indian government clearly has the intention to maintain it and they've
put in enough paramilitary police force to maintain their presence,
even if not to suppress the militants, and I think they'll maintain it
that way. Eventually we'll get back to some electoral process and then
I think the UN can play a role in terms of monitoring and making sure
it's done fairly.
But, it needs to be done carefully. Otherwise you see us playing a
role for one side or the other. And this is definitely a two-sided
game with states, and a three-sided game if you count the poor Kashmir
people who happen to be in the middle of it.
You've had a great number of refugees flow out of Kashmir. Basically,
they're the Hindus, and so there are refugee camps in Delhi which
keeps the question alive there. The other point I think that needs to
be made is that the Kashmir Muslims have always been seen as slightly
different. I mean, basically the large Muslim population in India has
not responded to Kashmir as something that affects them personally.
The Islamic world has responded to Kashmir. The organization of
Islamic countries, the OIC, passes resolutions on it. But that is
about it. It's rather unique that it is an Islamic conflict but it
hasn't attracted that much support from the Islamic world.
CNN: And yet the governments of India and Pakistan are very serious
about controlling Kashmir. Why?
Clark: Both of them want to do it for a variety of reasons. The
Pakistanis, of course, haven't forgotten the Bangladesh war. What used
to be East Pakistan is now Bangladesh. If for no other reason, they
would like to get a little back at India, and have former Kashmir be
now part of what was West Pakistan. There are a lot of problems here.
They started out from the same route. They were one country for a long
time, or at least one administration, and so you have almost old
school rivalries that are still going at it.
Arun Chandra
: I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
David,
I must commend you on your wise FINAL decision. It is true that there
may be some problems with some aspects of "scijk," but we need to
respect the results of a democratic process, whatever that democratic
process might be. Of course, as we all know, no process of democracy
is perfect, but that is not a reason to gut the electoral processes.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
* *
* Arun Chandra *
* 1L *
* Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (Yeshiva University) *
* New York NY *
* *
* *
* "Wisdom is prevented by ignorance, and delusion is the *
* result." *
* - Bhagvad Gita *
* *
-=-=-=-=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOOo-(_)-oOOo-=-=-=-=
Christopher B. Stone
>I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
Would you please clarify whether you plan to let the CFV for
soc.culture.kashmir proceed as scheduled?
--
Chris Stone
cbs...@phoenix.princeton.edu * http://www.princeton.edu/~cbstone
"Isolationism must become a thing of the past." -- Harry S. Truman
Russ Allbery
> David C Lawrence <newgroup...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
>> I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
> Would you please clarify whether you plan to let the CFV for
> soc.culture.kashmir proceed as scheduled?
Last I heard, he does.
victor
>pleasant decision.
>
>Sincere thanks to Warren Lavelle the vote taker
>for handling the record settingly huge vote. My
>my self for criticism of the algorithm he used
>in the analysis and any emotional outbursts.
>
I also want to convey my sincere thanks too all the people
involved in this new group creation. :) esp Warren Lavelle.
Also apologize again for the mean stuff that I had said against
him.
>Sincere thanks to Shrisha Rao, the reasoned proponent
>who is the father of sci.jk!
Shrisha Rao, Good Job keep it up. And dont get discouraged by
some Astrologer punk cultists against you. :)
>thanks to the news groups regulars who supported the
>cause through reasoned analysis.
>
>thanks to voters who voiced their concern on the
>preliminary results to draw the attention of
>people on news.groups
>
>thanks to voters.
>
>and thanks to opponents who actually are the real
>cause for this massive turn out.
>
>thanks to the supporters who have spent their
>huge time investments on the arguemnts.
>
>and finally the real big thanks to http:/dejanews.com
>
>
>gopal
>
Mustafa Syed
>I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
>
>This decision was not made lightly; none of the possible resolutions
>to this unusual vote were completely satisfactory.
>
Do what you have to do Mr. Clearly you have no sense of justice or
moral basis on which to base your decisions. In the absence of this you will
not find any possible resolution to your satisfaction and will do what you
intend to do on 22nd.
I will only say this, more for record then to convince you, that you
are not only misrepresenting facts but are also trying to justify your decision
by citing portions of the "Guidelines for Usenet Group Creation" that can be
interpreted both ways and can be equal grounds to nullify this proposed group!
Facts are:
1. Jammu&Kashmir is under indian occupation and the right of self determination
of its' people has been recogised many times over in all international
bodies including United Nations. This right has also been recognised by
successive Indian Governments but with decreasing emphasis as people like
you have shown to the Indian Government that there is no need to actually
let people of Jammu&Kashmir exercise this right!
2. I am sure that when some indian zealot would propose
"soc.culture.indian.nepal" you will accept it as legitimate as you are
apolitical and when nepali people with about 2% of indian population
can not stop this "democratic" process you will come up with the same
excuse based on ""Guidelines for Usenet Group Creation"...right!
3. And ofcourse you will have no qualms to accept a proposal for
"soc.culture.greaterserbia.bosnia" as you do not concern yourself with
namespace issues and you don't see any "extraordinary" circumstances when
people are subjugated and oppressed and newsgroup namespace is used for
perpetuating this crime against humanity.......you DO SEE "extraordinary"
circumstances in numbers of votes cast and use that to JUSTIFY what can
not be justified!!
4. If the purpose is to discuss issues pertinent to Jammu&Kashmir then
"soc.culture.jammu&kashmir" will work just fine, but you are either
ignorant or very clever when you simply state that:
>NO voters all opposing it because of namespace issues? To some
>extent, yes, but based on my non-scientific gut-feeling about this, I
>don't think most of them were doing so based on an unbiased
>consideration of the naming issues. In any event, the group creation
You dismiss the namespace summarily because it is convenient. You are right
this group will pass as many times as you want.....precisely because of the
namespace issue. INDIANS WANT to perpetuate the occupation of Jammu&Kashmir
despite UN recognized FACT that it is NOT a part of INDIA.
5. All member countries of UNO actually disagree with your claim that:
>have almost no confidence that it will. At the heart of this Usenet
>controversy is a political conflict that is essentially between
>Pakistan and India. One reference I have indicates that India has at
>least eight times the population of Pakistan; as a national issue for
>both, the Pakistanis lose in any vaguely democratic situation because
>they are far outnumbered, just like the Ahmadis, Tibetans and Slavic
>Macedonians were in other controversial Usenet votes before them.
>
This is NOT a bilateral problem but an internationally accepted
issue of occupation of independent state of Jammu&Kashmir. Unlike the
other issues you try to compare it with, Kashmir has been an idependent
state even when current day india was not!
You will find that Pakistanis and others will accept the newsgroup names
such as "soc.culture.indian.hyderabad" or "soc.culture.indian.sikkim"
or "soc.culture.indian.junagadh&Manawadar" even though these too were
occupied by India over the years but these are not issues where world has
taken a position on as after occupation it was possible for India to conduct
elections and referendums to legitimize the done deed, and the world choose
to ignore these. Kashmir, because of its' size, location, people and
heritage was not so easy to swallow and world saw the occupation for what it
was......occupation and subjugation and denial of right of
self-determination to the people and hence what you are doing on 22nd is
casting your vote firmly with those committing crimes against
humanity....with over half the Indian army[ over 600,000 troops ] currently
in Kashmir doing on ground what you are doing in cyberspace!
You SIR, are just a very willing pawn in the hands of criminals against
humanity......
........... so do what your closed mind, not your conscience, tells you
to do!!
>David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups
Mustafa.
Premkumar Natarajan
: Vote of thanks
: Sincere thanks to Warren Lavelle the vote taker
: for handling the record settingly huge vote. My
: *sincere* apologies on behalf of every one and
: my self for *hot* criticism of the algorithm he used
: in the analysis and some unpleasant *emotional*
: outbursts. i did acknowledge earlier, that he was
: sincere in his approach, as exhibited by his willingness
: to give full details of algorithm, as well as test
: running of the algorithm on other recently held
: vote, and presenting the results there of. yet,
: expressing thanks, i admit, will not take away
: the pain he suffered by occassional epithets hurled
: at him. hope, being a UVV he will sure have a greater
: resilience than average "us".
Lots of blah.
A reasoned approach requires no apologies in it's wake.
And honest criticism needs no explanation. It is the
lot of unreasonable and hotheaded reactionaries to constantly
apologise for some gaffe or another. Such obsequious behaviour
does not detract from any earlier indulgence in thuggery.
prem
: gopal
Jan Isley
>Would you please clarify whether you plan to let the CFV for
>soc.culture.kashmir proceed as scheduled?
I will begin work on the CFV as soon as my schedule permits.
Dhruba Chakravarti
: Dhruba Chakravarti <dcha...@netserv.unmc.edu> writes:
: The fact that you consider the naming of a Usenet group to be an
: appropriate forum in which to campaign for one view of the nationality of
: Kashmir indicates to me that your "moral position" is rather lacking in
: morals. I find it highly amusing that you would be so polite now that
: you've gotten your own way.
: No, but you're quite happy to use your superior numbers as a voting block
: to force your view of the political situation on the rest of the world.
: Bravo, my dear sir, you succeeded. I hope you're pleased.
: viable one, but that in no way diminishes my disgust at the dishonor with
: which some parties in this debate have conducted themselves.
: --
: Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Dear Mr. Russ Allbery:
Thank you for responding. Before you accuse me of being conveniently
polite at present, and propose to teach morals, did you look at any of my
posts on this issue?
I invite you to be properly amuse yourself at my expense.
Regards,
Dhruba.
Christopher B. Stone
>...It is true that there
>may be some problems with some aspects of "scijk," but we need to
>respect the results of a democratic process, whatever that democratic
>process might be.
So if, say, the Alabama legislature tomorrow were to pass a law saying
that all African-Americans had to sit in the back of the bus, you would
say we should respect that democratic process "whatever the results might
be"?
George Herbert
>newgroup...@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) wrote:
>>I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
>>This decision was not made lightly; none of the possible resolutions
>>to this unusual vote were completely satisfactory.
>
> Do what you have to do Mr. Clearly you have no sense of justice or
>moral basis on which to base your decisions. In the absence of this you will
>not find any possible resolution to your satisfaction and will do what you
>intend to do on 22nd.
> I will only say this, more for record then to convince you, that you
>are not only misrepresenting facts but are also trying to justify your decision
>by citing portions of the "Guidelines for Usenet Group Creation" that can be
>interpreted both ways and can be equal grounds to nullify this proposed group!
> Facts are:
> 1. Jammu&Kashmir is under indian occupation and the right of self
> determination of its' people has been recogised many times over
> in all international bodies including United Nations.
Usenet Newsgroup Names should not represent political affiliations or
statements. Anyone who attaches such significance or attempts to do
so or portrays them as having such significance is saying falsehoods.
Such infractions occurred on both sides of the debates over s.c.k
and s.c.i.j-k, but that does not make them true or accurate.
Accusing Tale of being a pawn of criminals is not productive.
Among other things, s.c.k is probably going to be allowed to go
to a vote shortly, and it had *better* not be the subject of
abusive no-vote campaigns.
-george william herbert
gher...@crl.com
F Andrew McMichael
: I find it highly amusing that you would be so polite now that
: you've gotten your own way.
There seems to be alot of that going around.
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Premkumar Natarajan <pnat...@diamond.tufts.edu> wrote:
>
>A reasoned approach requires no apologies in it's wake.
>And honest criticism needs no explanation. It is the
>lot of unreasonable and hotheaded reactionaries to constantly
>apologise for some gaffe or another. Such obsequious behaviour
>does not detract from any earlier indulgence in thuggery.
>
>prem
thanks for the reasoned complements. what made you
to describe me as hotheaded reactionary? and what
is that thuggery you are associating me with? are
you implying that i was personally involved in
hurling epithets in post-vote season?
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Dhruba Chakravarti <dcha...@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote:
>Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) wrote:
>: I find it highly amusing that you would be so polite now that
>: you've gotten your own way.
>
>
>Dear Mr. Russ Allbery:
>
>Thank you for responding. Before you accuse me of being conveniently
>polite at present, and propose to teach morals, did you look at any of my
>posts on this issue?
>
>I invite you to be properly amuse yourself at my expense.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dhruba.
>
Dear Russ:
to the best of my knowledge, Dhrubaji has posted only two posts
on the thread: one simply said his vote is not counted. and in
the other he *volunteered* to count the 22,00 odd votes
*manually*. the second was in response to some one saying 'if
you want votes to be counted get your own volunteer'. i can
assure you that he is not a person who requires some one to
give a testimonial for him. he will never indulge in vote blocks
you are referring to. you are taking out your anger on a wrong
person.
gopal
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <4l19fi$f...@shiva.hudsonet.com>,
>Arun Chandra <acha...@hudsonet.com> wrote:
>>David C Lawrence (newgroup...@uunet.uu.net) wrote:
>
>>...It is true that there
>>may be some problems with some aspects of "scijk," but we need to
>>respect the results of a democratic process, whatever that democratic
>>process might be.
>
>So if, say, the Alabama legislature tomorrow were to pass a law saying
>that all African-Americans had to sit in the back of the bus, you would
>say we should respect that democratic process "whatever the results might
>be"?
>--
would not that be naive to think that Alabama legislature would pass
such a law? majority of people can hardly be described as racists.
for instance, in canada where indians are insignificant minority
and sikhs are ultra-insignificant minority, and when radical whites
wanted turbaned-sikhs to be banned from canadian-legion halls, the
entire nation boiled and ultimately the legion had to change its
policy so as to allow the turbaned sikhs in.
if overwhelming voters voted yes for sci.jk it is because they
are *not* convinced of the name space arguments against sci.jk.
Jay Maynard
>I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
I am sorry to see this happen.
>The significant precedent problem with this decision is, of course,
>that it appears to legitimize rampant campaigning for a group. This
>is an issue that I can't hope to address fully here, in an already
>long message, but it deserves some comment.
Unfortunately, whatever your intentions (and I believe them to be honest,
unlike those who conducted a campaign for this group on a scale never
seen before), the effect of this decision is in fact to legitimize
rampant campaigning for a group. It also has the effect of, once again,
denying a minority a forum they find acceptable. We can now add Kashmiris
who do not agree that the province should be part of India to the shameful
list that already includes Ahmaddi Muslims and Macedonians; they will
never have a group whose name they do not consider an insult, simply
because the same 23,000 Indians who were turned out for this vote would
turn out to strike down a group name they consider acceptable.
>The whole process is ripe for change, in more of a way than I think
>current ideas in news.groups are really addressing.
>It should be crystal clear that my decision is not made based on my
>own biases regarding the proposal. I argued at length with the
>proponent of this group, trying to broker a compromise that didn't
>have the appearance of using the Usenet group namespace for political
>purposes. (Whether the proponent himself is guilty of that is not an
>accusation I am making.) I still believe the final proposal has some
>significant faults that make it a poorly named group.
Did you suggest creating both scij-k and sck? I believe this to be the
only equitable solution, since, otherwise, the proponents get exactly
what they want: a group name that recognizes Kashmir as part of India,
and no group that doesn't.
In short, I feel this decision is a capitulation to vote fraud and
campaigning on a scale never before seen, and does indeed legitimize it.
I cannot, in good conscience, endorse this decision, nor can I support the
process that leads to it. I believe the proponents have been handed what
they want on a silver platter as a reward for taking actions that have
historically been seriously frowned upon. I believe the minority has been
trampled, and that they will never have a forum for discussion that they
can find acceptable. Finally, I believe Warren Lavallee's hard work in
trying to make some sense of the mess has been repudiated. I realize that
Dave intended none of these consequences, yet they do, in fact, exist.
For all these reasons, I am resigning as a member of the Usenet Volunteer
Votetakers. I realize that my departure will not be missed - I haven't taken
a vote in some time - yet I cannot remain as part of the process when abuses
of this scale are not only tolerated but encouraged.
I await Dave's proposal for an overhaul of the process with eagerness. I will
consider once again volunteering my time to help make Usenet a better network
should it be adopted.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
http://k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Are we going to push it to the edge of the envelope?" -- Pinky
"No, Pinky. We may, however, reach the sticky part." -- The Brain
Vivek Sadananda Pai
>Premkumar Natarajan <pnat...@diamond.tufts.edu> wrote:
>>
>>A reasoned approach requires no apologies in it's wake.
>>And honest criticism needs no explanation. It is the
>>lot of unreasonable and hotheaded reactionaries to constantly
>>apologise for some gaffe or another. Such obsequious behaviour
>>does not detract from any earlier indulgence in thuggery.
"earlier indulgence in thuggery"? I didn't realize Gopal was a
thuggee. In any case, I know of no travelers he choken and robbed, but
I am aware that he posted notes in many newsgroups asking people whose
voted weren't considered valid the first time to come forward and make
their voices heard. Incidentally, I did the same.
I don't regret canvassing for people to object to the initial results
because I don't believe that the original process was fair, and I
didn't want to see this proposal die of benign neglect. In the process
of asking people to come forward, some hotheads did step forward, but
you'll find that they were actively discouraged from being
abusive. It's a tightrope walk, since on one hand you are asking
people to speak out against unfairness, but on the other hand, you are
asking them to maintain civility while doing so.
Your insults directed against Gopal are unwarranted.
>thanks for the reasoned complements. what made you
>to describe me as hotheaded reactionary? and what
>is that thuggery you are associating me with? are
>you implying that i was personally involved in
>hurling epithets in post-vote season?
I'd pay no attention to it. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone is
convinced theirs is better than the rest. When random newcomers were
unjustly criticizing Shrisha based on biased information they'd been
fed, they didn't have the courtesy to apologize when it was pointed
out that they'd been suckered. I expect that the trend is
far-reaching. I was glad, however, to see David Lawrence make explicit
mention of Shrisha in the results post.
-Vivek
Russ Allbery
> Thank you for responding. Before you accuse me of being conveniently
> polite at present, and propose to teach morals, did you look at any of
> my posts on this issue?
The post I was responding to was plenty, thank you. Usenet namespace is
not the forum in which to take stands on moral issues.
Lance Visser
+>Accusing Tale of being a pawn of criminals is not productive.
+>Among other things, s.c.k is probably going to be allowed to go
+>to a vote shortly, and it had *better* not be the subject of
+>abusive no-vote campaigns.
What difference will it make if it is? Its already been proved
by this result that if you can get big numbers of votes and lots of
pressure behind something, that the guidelines will be reinterpreted
to accomodate whatever decision that "pressure" wants made.
All they have to do is get the same margin as last time and we
will be told that in such an "extraordinary situation", we must
respect the wishes of so many people to preserve the namespace by not
creating s.c.k.
Gharib Hanif
>I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
>This decision was not made lightly; none of the possible resolutions
>to this unusual vote were completely satisfactory.
How about a re-vote as the guidelines indicate??? Or will that trouble
the Indian friends too much??
>Consider that the "Guidelines for Usenet Group Creation" contains the
>following paragraph:
> Any group creation request which follows these guidelines to a
> successful result should be honored, and any request which fails to
> follow these procedures or to obtain a successful result from doing
> so should be dropped, except under extraordinary circumstances. The
> reason these are called guidelines and not absolute rules is that it
> is not possible to predict in advance what "extraordinary
> circumstances" are or how they might arise.
And why is this clause being applied to this group?? Are there no
other worthy causes.
Davoid mentions below that the numerical supremacy prohibts many
minorities to get nrwsgroups off the ground. For example, he mentions
the Ahmedias - surely if they are being bullied and have been a denied
a newsgroup then surely that was a more whorthy cause for David to use
the above clause and give them a newsgroup.
The Indians with a vote-bank of 100k+ dont exactly need special
treament.
Can I suggest that David uses the above clause to create the
forthcoming sck newsgroup irrespective of its results as we, the
Kashmiris, are lacking in numbers and are deserving cause. How about
it David??
>By receiving over four times as many as votes as any proposal has seen
>before, and ten times as many votes as usual, this vote can clearly be
>declared, "extraordinary." For its statistical uniqueness alone I
>have the grounds to completely invalidate the vote and insist another
>be held.
Then why not? Why not apply the same rules to everybody?
>Unfortunately, there is little practical point of having another vote.
>Yes, massive numbers of voters in this proposal were ill-informed
>about what they were voting about; however, we have never been able to
>enforce voting according to the intent of what group creation votes
>are trying to measure. Will those 23,670 YES voters really use the
>group? Doubtful. But will it be active? Almost certainly, if not
>really in the way the charter for the group describes. Were the 1,803
>NO voters all opposing it because of namespace issues? To some
>extent, yes, but based on my non-scientific gut-feeling about this, I
>don't think most of them were doing so based on an unbiased
>consideration of the naming issues. In any event, the group creation
>process has traditionally been very bad at directly addressing
>namespace management issues.
If the Indians can carry out mass vote fraud and get with it then I
dare say what kind or precdence is being set here.
>It should be noted that I did my own review of the votes and did not
>obviously see any large scale automated generation of votes, at least
>not that would have made any difference in the overall poll. They
>really do appear to be almost all sent in by individuals.
>Ultimately the question I see is, "If this vote were held again, is
>there any realistic chance of having a more meaningful outcome?" I
>have almost no confidence that it will. At the heart of this Usenet
>controversy is a political conflict that is essentially between
>Pakistan and India. One reference I have indicates that India has at
>least eight times the population of Pakistan; as a national issue for
>both, the Pakistanis lose in any vaguely democratic situation because
>they are far outnumbered, just like the Ahmadis, Tibetans and Slavic
>Macedonians were in other controversial Usenet votes before them.
>The significant precedent problem with this decision is, of course,
>that it appears to legitimize rampant campaigning for a group. This
>is an issue that I can't hope to address fully here, in an already
>long message, but it deserves some comment. Some degree of
>campaigning has historically had its legitimate place in the group
>creation process. It is why the Guidelines say that the proposal
>should be sent to groups and mailing lists that have any relation to
>the proposed topic. Though it results in dilution of the significance
>of vote results, at least as concerns what these votes were originally
>designed to measure, the basic methodology of these self-selecting
>polls is already inherently flawed despite it. To put a gag order on
>advocates of a group can result in it not getting enough respondents
>to support it even if there are a lot of them out there, or it gives
>opponents free reign to campaign against it or to get a vote
>invalidated by actually campaigning for it. To gag all campaigning,
>for or against, similarly gives people opposed to a proposal a tool
>with which to derail it. By no means does this mean that rampant
>campaigning should be the order of the day. It is the exception, and
>proponents who do it still run the risk of having their votes invalidated.
But it appears that Shri Shria Rao has got away with it. I think you
didnt have to be Einstein to notice the blantant abuse and fraud
inacted by the Indian side. There were pre-filled ballots without CFV
circulating on every Indian mailing list. Is that not fraud??? Or does
this not count as it is done by a numerical superior group???
>The whole process is ripe for change, in more of a way than I think
>current ideas in news.groups are really addressing. To some degree
>they might help a little in the short term, but some lateral thinking
>is needed to really get past the problems that the Guidelines have
>traditionally been so poor at handling. (This lateral thinking will,
>of course, get us into a whole new set of problems. Hooray.) Over
>the next few months I will be finalizing and publicly presenting a
>proposal for some relatively radical changes to the process. In the
>meantime, the UVV will do the best they can within the current
>framework to address the problems that campaigning causes.
Then it would only be right to hold off scijk and other controvsial
poposals until the new process comes into force?
>It should be crystal clear that my decision is not made based on my
>own biases regarding the proposal. I argued at length with the
>proponent of this group, trying to broker a compromise that didn't
>have the appearance of using the Usenet group namespace for political
>purposes. (Whether the proponent himself is guilty of that is not an
>accusation I am making.) I still believe the final proposal has some
>significant faults that make it a poorly named group.
Is that why it got prefential treatment??
This nothing but a shambles. How can you have one set of rules or one
group of people and another set of exceptional rules for an another
set of people. Rules and laws are meant to be applicable to all
irrespective of their race, creed, religion, color and numericla
supremacy.
By making an exception, David has fatally set a precendent for mass
vote fraud in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Kashmir Web site at:
http://www.ummah.org.uk/kashmir/ - updated: 26/3/1996.
http://www.ummah.org.uk/kashmir/atroc - atrocities list - updated 3/2/96
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gharib Hanif
>Dhruba Chakravarti <dcha...@netserv.unmc.edu> writes:
>> Thank you for conducting the recount
>There was no recount. Those were the raw voting totals provided by
>Mr. Lavallee.
>> However, I was not very happy to read that you attribute this outcome
>> simply to the numerical advantage we Indians have. I believe that an
>> equally important issue is the moral positions that people from both
>> countries take on Jammu and Kashmir.
>The fact that you consider the naming of a Usenet group to be an
>appropriate forum in which to campaign for one view of the nationality of
>Kashmir indicates to me that your "moral position" is rather lacking in
>morals. I find it highly amusing that you would be so polite now that
>you've gotten your own way.
Gotten their way by illegal means I dare say. Vote fraud is vote fraud
- there is no excuse.
George Herbert
That is completely faulty logic; that would only be true if Tale
and the rest of us that care about Usenet completely abandoned
any belief in the guidelines and principles Usenet naming is based on.
This decision was not an abandonment of Usenet to anarchy; it was
the exception to the many rules, and will undoubtedly cause the
formation of new rules to prevent things like it from happening
again and further troubling us. That is how Usenet works; we grow
largely by having bad things happen and either stand or get shot down,
and by adjusting or improvising to keep them from happening again.
The vote-invalidation and instant revote did not magically appear
nor was it part of the Guidelines from day one; it came out of a
very painful experience (the first great rec.arts.sf reorg).
After due discussion some new methods of dealing with namespace
politicalization and vote abuse will be incorporated to keep
s.c.i.j-k from happening again.
-george william herbert
gher...@crl.com
Russ Allbery
> What difference will it make if it is? Its already been proved
> by this result that if you can get big numbers of votes and lots of
> pressure behind something, that the guidelines will be reinterpreted
> to accomodate whatever decision that "pressure" wants made.
If we get the same sort of vote on soc.culture.kashmir as we did on
soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir, just with the YES and NO reversed, I'll
be pushing to throw out the vote and create the group anyway.
Dunno if that makes you feel better or not.
Russ Allbery
this entire situation with a great deal of respect for Shrisha Rao. He
has conducted himself in both private and public discussion with dignity,
restraint, and honor. While I doubted initially that his statements of
neutrality were sincere, I've come to change my mind; if he is not neutral
on this issue (which appears to be insanely difficult), he has at least
done his best to maintain neutrality throughout these discussions, and for
that I thank him sincerely. Of course, I still think he's stubborn and
inflexible (*grin*), but then so am I.
It's a hellish newsgroup to propose, and the entire situation surrounding
the vote was a nightmare for everyone involved. Had Shrisha in his
position as the proponent been less forthcoming, flexible, and willing to
discuss alternatives, the entire situation could have been much uglier.
As for the rest of this debate, I refuse to dance around or weaken my
feelings on the matter. I'm disgusted by those who attempted to turn this
vote into a moral referendum on Kashmir. I think they have done real
damage to the newsgroup creation process, that they have done even more
severe damage to the chances of ever having any sort of reasonable
discussion of Kashmir, and that as long as people continue to attempt to
turn every forum on this subject into an Indian/Pakistani religious war,
the situation will never be resolved, either on Usenet or on the ground.
I sincerely hope that Shrisha's expectations for this newsgroup are
fulfilled. I'm not particularly optimistic, given what I've seen on
news.groups.
For those who are even now attempting to take this vote as a sign of some
moral victory, as evidence that their political views are the correct
ones, or as evidence that Usenet as a whole favors one side or another,
don't be so confident that you'll be able to pull off your little bit of
revisionism. There are some of us who will always remember the *real*
story of this vote.
Rajwinder Singh
> and for those who were dominated by
> their baser instincts, I hope you have the honor to apologize
> to those who had to bear the brunt of your posts.
I suggest Vivek Sadanada Pai lead all such folks by example. It begins at
home.
Reagrds
Rajwinder Singh
Vivek Sadananda Pai
By all means, Rajwinder, please show me a post where I verbally
abused someone involved with the voting process, and I will do
the right thing. However, if the best you have is a post here and
there where I call the occasional ill-informed loudmouth a moron,
then please save your breath.
-Vivek
Vivek Sadananda Pai
In article <qumwx3e...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>,
|> Lance Visser <vis...@convex.com> writes:
|>
|> > What difference will it make if it is? Its already been proved
|> > by this result that if you can get big numbers of votes and lots of
|> > pressure behind something, that the guidelines will be reinterpreted
|> > to accomodate whatever decision that "pressure" wants made.
|>
|> If we get the same sort of vote on soc.culture.kashmir as we did on
|> soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir, just with the YES and NO reversed, I'll
|> be pushing to throw out the vote and create the group anyway.
I asked once before about what happens if there is enough interest
in a group, but it fails anyway, and the answer I received (don't
recall who said it) was something along the lines of "it's never
happened". Incidentally, when I asked that question, it was about rmw-p.
I hope that the SCK vote doesn't become one of "let's defeat this
other proposal so we keep Kashmir in India only", and if it does
become that, I'd second your motion.
However, before I do, I would like to see one issue addressed, and
that's the issue of the moderators. Right now, I have no faith in
the proposed moderators, because one is still a total unknown, and
the other is a person I don't believe I feel comfortable trusting.
I've publicized my views on this, and I hope that either Mr. Siraj
speaks up, or he steps down and finds someone who is less incendiary.
If the proposal fails because of a lack of confidence in the moderators,
is that a valid outcome, and if so, how does one gauge why someone
voted against the proposal?
To clarify the matter, I do not want to see the proposal fail. What
I would like to see is a modification of the moderator panel, or
abolishing moderators altogether and going with an automoderated
group. I would have no problems with either venue. However, if the
group goes to a CFV as it currently is, I can't say that I'll be
thrilled.
-Vivek
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Jay Maynard <jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
>We can now add Kashmiris
>who do not agree that the province should be part of India to the shameful
>list that already includes Ahmaddi Muslims and Macedonians; they will
>never have a group whose name they do not consider an insult, simply
>because the same 23,000 Indians who were turned out for this vote would
>turn out to strike down a group name they consider acceptable.
>
my own feeling is this: it should not happen that a minority voice
be deprived of a forum of their own. one way to achieve this is by
changing criteria for news group creation such that if there are enough
yes votes, then the group be created irrespective of level of
opposition. if all the 1800 voters who voted no on sci.jk happen to
vote yes on sckashmir, then even if 23,000 voters vote no, the group
can, on the basis of the new suggested rules, be created.
however, that the minority be given a forum should not mean that
majority should be denied such a forum.
while it is true that there is extensive campaigning on this vote,
it occured on both sides, according to vote taker's report. so
while the yes vote is inflated, the no vote also is inflated.
this is vote is about sci.jk and not about sck. creation of sci.jk
does not mean that the "independence-view" kashmiris are denied
a forum, it only means that those who agree with india-view on
kashmir are give a forum. the vote on sck willl actually determine
if the minority will be denied a forum.
it may be good idea to consider change of rules before sckashmir
CFV comes out, which the vote taker promised will be out shortly.
gopal
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
>> polite at present, and propose to teach morals, did you look at any of
>> my posts on this issue?
>
>The post I was responding to was plenty, thank you. Usenet namespace is
>not the forum in which to take stands on moral issues.
this last line of your itself seems to be a moral issue to me.
if you recall Tale's explanation in result-announcement
implied [he might not have intended probably, though] that
the result is based on the premise that all-indians vote
yes, and all pakistanis vote no on sci.jk, and hence india
view will always win due to numerical advantage. on the
other hand, Dhrubaji was pointing out that whether a voter
is an indian or pakistani, he or she votes on moral footing,
and not merely on nationality. none of us will be able to
say whether all yes voters are indians or if all no voters
are pakistanis. [it is wrong to assume for example that
all muslims are pakistanis, since india *has* more muslims
than pakistan has]. in the absece of evidence, Dhrubaji
was pointing out politely that, it is wrong to make such an
assumption about nationality based voting.
my opinion.
gopal
Joe Bernstein
(with followups I've almost, but not quite, respected):
> Greetings.
>
> As the proponent of the newsgroup, I would like to thank all those who
> participated in the long-drawn exercise.
[snip]
>
> There were many others who gave of their time and skill quite freely,
> not the least of them being George Herbert and Joe Bernstein
[snip]
Um, thanks. As some of my posts have shown, I haven't been equally
appreciative of you as proponent, Mr. Rao; but I do think what I've seen
on news.groups *in general* shows you doing Usenet more good than harm,
and that I do respect.
I think Mr. Rao's compliments, most of which I've snipped (and at least
one of which looked a bit like a typo; weren't you referring to Mr.
Herbert at that point, Mr. Rao?), are as good a place as any for me to
start commenting on this situation.
Two separate issues have been part of the scij-k proposal. Well, ok, lots
of issues, but only two I can see as significant in the long run. One is
the namespace question. The other is the question what to do with the
mammoth vote totals.
NAMESPACE: I've been bitterly opposed to the name
soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir, and still am. Tough. I've been just as
bitterly opposed to the name rec.scouting.usa, and my ISP offered me that
newsgroup today anyway. As a result, I've gotten actively involved in
trying to revive the us.* hierarchy. I expect also to be involved, to
whatever degree involvement is offered me, in trying to resolve the
problems scij-k has illustrated. Regardless, this particular case is a
closed issue now.
There's no soc.culture.tibet, and there should be. There's a
rec.books.tolkien, and there shouldn't be. Misnamed groups are a
well-established, though undesirable, aspect of Usenet, and as far as I'm
concerned, while the underlying issues remain, scij-k should now go
forward regardless of my or anyone's opinion of its name.
VOTES: I've also been bitterly opposed to what Mr. Lawrence has
apparently decided to do. (I say "apparently" because my *(^(*^$
newsreader has chosen to hide his post; I'm sure I'll find it eventually,
thanks, no need to send it to me.) However, my opposition was predicated
on the assumption that he would find substantial numbers of
machine-generated votes, which would justify invalidating the results
obtained. I might add that I further assumed there would be comparable
numbers of such invalid votes on both the YES and the NO sides. Since
both of my assumptions have proven incorrect (as far as I know), my
opposition has been undermined.
I still think a bunch of bad precedents are showing up here. It can't
be an accident that there is suddenly a huge thread on news.groups titled
"Re: RFD: talk.religion.jewish.jesus-messiah". And we've got plenty
more controversial votes coming. But I can only accept the statements of
Mr. Lawrence and others closely involved with the process that they're
trying to deal with this situation. As yet, I won't pretend to having a
better set of clues than they have.
It is worth noting that a fair amount of substantive discussion went
on, in the time immediately after Mr. Lavallee posted his "sample"
results, about how to fix the balloting process to avoid what obviously
did happen here -- votes from people unlikely to use the proposed
newsgroup. A process was eventually worked out, to which I contributed in
a minor way, which would solve a number of problems; but it would *not*
solve that one. So far, that one has *everyone* stumped. I assume this
is what Mr. Lawrence's reference to a need for "lateral thinking" meant.
In the absence of any such idea, while I still would rather have seen a
revote (if only on the theory that it would discourage some of the lazier
voters who don't read Usenet), I really haven't got any constructive
alternative to what Mr. Lawrence did.
A third issue which has become closely entangled with the scij-k proposal
is the separate proposal for soc.culture.kashmir. Since that proposal has
the name I would have preferred to see, I've been increasingly
disappointed as the discussion has gone on, by the fact that no attempt
has been made to deal constructively with the criticisms mounted, mainly
on the topic of the proposed moderator(s). Briefly, these criticisms
revolve around the concerns of some that the newsgroup will become a
one-sided anti-India soapbox; they began when only one, totally unknown,
moderator was proposed, and worsened in recent days as other possible
moderators were discussed who are plainly anti-India, including the one
now slated as a backup moderator for the CFV.
I've gone so far as to post a proposed "third RFD", on the (mistaken)
assumption that scij-k and sck would both ultimately failed. That
proposal included one moderated group and one unmoderated group.
If sck passes, that's exactly what will exist. And the new backup
moderator for sck claims, anyway, that no censorship is intended, on the
grounds that that would make a boring newsgroup.
CONCLUSIONS:
It's a long story why, but I wound up being one of the few people to vote
ABSTAIN on scij-k, despite my opposition.
I am now strongly inclined to vote ABSTAIN on sck as well, on the grounds
that it doesn't matter as much, given the presence of an unmoderated
alternative in the soc.* hierarchy. While I'd vastly prefer to see a
broader moderation panel (and I certainly will not vote YES without one),
I think the only concern I can really justify a NO vote from, any more, is
that there should be some formal provision in the Charter for moderator
replacement/recruitment.
In any event, one thing I've found in following both proposals, and the
rest of news.groups, is that this whole question of a "Request for
DISCUSSION" is both important and inadequately respected. Ethnicity
concerns seem in particular to drive out tolerance for reasoned argument,
whether in the Kashmir proposals or in rec.music.white-power. All three
seem destined to go from RFD to CFV essentially without changes,
illustrating either phenomenal brilliance on their proponents' part, or an
unwillingness to take the discussion seriously. In contrast, even a
proposal as venomously debated as rec.aquaria.* reorg went through several
RFDs, as did the rec.food.baking one (which I voted for) and the
rec.scouting.* reorg (which I voted against, though later cancelling my
vote). Respect for the discussion period seems genuinely beneficial; but
I have no idea how to make it happen.
Well, enough of my pontificating. Mr. Rao set followups to news.groups
and soc.culture.indian; I thought it appropriate to add
soc.culture.pakistan.
However, followups to this message are set to news.groups.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk and bookstore worker
speaking for himself and nobody else j...@sfbooks.com
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Rajwinder Singh <rajwi@otto> wrote:
>On 16 Apr 1996, Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
>
>> and for those who were dominated by
>> their baser instincts, I hope you have the honor to apologize
>> to those who had to bear the brunt of your posts.
>
>I suggest Vivek Sadanada Pai lead all such folks by example. It begins at
>home.
>
>Rajwinder Singh
coming from Rajwinder Singh makes it very very funny!! indeed!
did you forget why Sc.punjab proposal died? please be reasonable.
people living in glass chambers should not throw stones on others.
Gurudev Yogi
> I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
At last!
> By receiving over four times as many as votes as any proposal has seen
> before, and ten times as many votes as usual, this vote can clearly be
> declared, "extraordinary." For its statistical uniqueness alone I
> have the grounds to completely invalidate the vote and insist another
> be held.
This man has no training in statistics. If four times as many people
turned
out for a presidential election, would that invalidate the election? No
allegedly democratic system considers a large sample size to be evidence
of
'statistical uniqueness,' by which, he, of course, means a 'statistical
outlier,' i.e. lying outside two standard deviations of the norm, which
is
itself an error since he has not proven that the probability mass of
the response to UVV ballots is normally distributed. Furthermore, he
seems
to be confusing judgements based on this probability mass with
judgements
based on the mass reflected by a particular vote. Those regulations
were
designed to ensure that the distribution of votes in a given election
accurately reflected the 'mandate of the people' - i.e. prevent voter
fraud.
They were never intended to regulate the other mass. Any sensible
individual
would welcome a greater turnout, in the absence of fraud, of course,
which,
as he admits, there was no evidence of.
> It should be noted that I did my own review of the votes and did not
> obviously see any large scale automated generation of votes, at least
> not that would have made any difference in the overall poll. They
> really do appear to be almost all sent in by individuals.
Justice at last.
> Ultimately the question I see is, "If this vote were held again, is
> there any realistic chance of having a more meaningful outcome?" I
> have almost no confidence that it will.
Excellent point. I wonder why it took them so long to come to this
conclusion...
> Finally, Warren Lavallee, the votetaker, should not be decried for his
> attempt to make some sense of the extraordinary turnout by sampling a
> percentage of the votes to theoretically eliminate the influences of
> campaigning.
Why on earth not? Look at how he chose to do it!
> There was rational thinking behind his methodology, even
> if that methodology proved to be flawed in practice.
As a linguist, I find this sentence very interesting, because it argues
so strongly against the human linguistic faculty having any logical
consistency whatsoever.
> He did what he
> did in good faith, with no hint of bias, and the people who stridently
> accused him of shady dealings should be ashamed of themselves for
> their own prejudices. Mr. Lavallee is an upstanding citizen who has
> graciously provided his vote counting services for dozens of Usenet
> groups; he is to be commended for his altruistic work on behalf of the
> net.
In other words, he's an idiot with good intentsions. Bravo, Mr.
Lavallee,
bravo (clap, clap, clap).
>
> David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups, and total git
Rajwinder Singh
> It's a hellish newsgroup to propose, and the entire situation surrounding
> the vote was a nightmare for everyone involved. Had Shrisha in his
> position as the proponent been less forthcoming, flexible, and willing to
> discuss alternatives, the entire situation could have been much uglier.
I differ, Russ. Just like soc.culture.punjab and soc.culture.sindh,
soc.culture.kashmir is the most appropriate name. Shrisha Rao knows it,
and ....
> As for the rest of this debate, I refuse to dance around or weaken my
> feelings on the matter. I'm disgusted by those who attempted to turn this
> vote into a moral referendum on Kashmir. I think they have done real
> damage to the newsgroup creation process, that they have done even more
> severe damage to the chances of ever having any sort of reasonable
> discussion of Kashmir,
Shrisha Rao's motive has been _completely_ political. Your disgust thus
begins right at the point where Shrisha Rao stole the newsgroup topic
when he got the wind that soc.culture.kashmir was being proposed. This
stands true no matter how vehemently he [or his handymen] denies it.
> and that as long as people continue to attempt to
> turn every forum on this subject into an Indian/Pakistani religious war,
> the situation will never be resolved, either on Usenet or on the ground.
That is precisely why thie RFD for the ng should never have been released.
> I sincerely hope that Shrisha's expectations for this newsgroup are
> fulfilled. I'm not particularly optimistic, given what I've seen on
> news.groups.
Shrisha Rao has done his job. He is least bothered about what goes on in
the ng. His motive has been ONLY to make s.c.i.j-k extant. I predict that
s.c.i.j-k will be an enormous wasteland of a newsgroup.
> For those who are even now attempting to take this vote as a sign of some
> moral victory, as evidence that their political views are the correct
> ones, or as evidence that Usenet as a whole favors one side or another,
> don't be so confident that you'll be able to pull off your little bit of
> revisionism. There are some of us who will always remember the *real*
> story of this vote.
And I still maintain that, keeping in mind the features of the real
story, Tale should NOT create the newsgroup. I am astounded that a
newsgroup proposal which has serious namespace hassles, as well as a vote
fraud of unprecedented proportions, is being created.
Regards,
Rajwinder Singh
Jay Maynard
> There are some of us who will always remember the *real*
>story of this vote.
Whoopee. There are some of us who remember the real story of such Usenet
abominations as sci.aquaria, rec.arts.manga, soc.culture.macedonia...the
list goes on. Big fat lot of good it's done us.
F Andrew McMichael
: Whoopee. There are some of us who remember the real story of such Usenet
: abominations as sci.aquaria, rec.arts.manga, soc.culture.macedonia...the
: list goes on. Big fat lot of good it's done us.
Don't forget rec.hunting.kibo. Now *that* was an abomination.
Brijnandan Dehiya
Gharib Hanif <ha...@gharib.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>newgroup...@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) wrote:
>
>Can I suggest that David uses the above clause to create the
>forthcoming sck newsgroup irrespective of its results as we, the
>Kashmiris, are lacking in numbers and are deserving cause. How about
>it David??
1803 NO votes to sci-jk does not suggest that there is any lack of voters
_for_ sck. I wonder if this is a record for NO votes for any newsgroup.
Brij
I will vote NO for sck unless I see a moderator who does not spew
venom at the slightest provocation.
George Herbert
Oh ye of little sense of humor. There are serious abuses of Usenet
which happen, and then there are people doing silly things to it
(or trying to). rec.hunting.kibo was in no way comperable to any
of the big, hostile, negative outcome proposals we've seen.
-george william herbert
gher...@crl.com
George Herbert
>On 17 Apr 1996 13:07:32 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> There are some of us who will always remember the *real*
>>story of this vote.
>
>abominations as sci.aquaria, rec.arts.manga, soc.culture.macedonia...the
>list goes on. Big fat lot of good it's done us.
As time goes on, we evolve the system to try and deal with abuses
and prevent them from happening again. UVV, the invalidate/instant-revote
system, ... even the explicit "you can change your vote" rule ( 8-).
Working on bettering the system is a big, fat lot of good, and a lot
of it came out of the big, painful proposals.
-george william herbert
gher...@crl.com
George Herbert
Gurudev Yogi <yo...@satyam.net> [incidentally, an obviosuly faked account
name given the message-ID] wrote:
>David Lawrence wrote:
>> By receiving over four times as many as votes as any proposal has seen
>> before, and ten times as many votes as usual, this vote can clearly be
>> declared, "extraordinary." For its statistical uniqueness alone I
>> have the grounds to completely invalidate the vote and insist another
>> be held.
>
He doesn't need any.
>If four times as many people turned out for a presidential election,
>would that invalidate the election?
I would assume so; 60% turnout most of the time means that 4x as many
would be 240% turnout. A whole new meaning to "vote early and often".
>No allegedly democratic system considers a large sample size to be evidence
>of 'statistical uniqueness,' by which, he, of course, means a 'statistical
>outlier,' i.e. lying outside two standard deviations of the norm, which
>is itself an error since he has not proven that the probability mass of
>the response to UVV ballots is normally distributed.
Firstly, the usenet voting system is not allegedly democratic. Its point
is not to enact the will of the majority. Its point is to convince the
individual news admins that there is sufficient interest to warrant
the group existing. It is an interest poll.
Secondly, this is a lot more than 2 SDs off the norm, and it is not far
from a normal distribution. You are welcome to dig up the results and
analyze them and try and prove me wrong.
>Furthermore, he seems to be confusing judgements based on this probability
>mass with judgements based on the mass reflected by a particular vote.
Incorrect. You are again misunderstanding what the objective is of the vote,
and you are again misunderstanding Tale's analysis and decision.
>Those regulations
>were
>designed to ensure that the distribution of votes in a given election
>accurately reflected the 'mandate of the people' - i.e. prevent voter
>fraud.
>They were never intended to regulate the other mass. Any sensible
>individual
>would welcome a greater turnout, in the absence of fraud, of course,
>which,
>as he admits, there was no evidence of.
The "guidelines" were not intended to regulate the number of votes.
But ballot-box stuffing is an orthogonal solution to what the objective
of the ballot is... to convince the independent news admins that there is
enough interest in the proposal. Going out and spreading information
on how to vote to otherwise uninterested parties defeats the real purpose,
which is to see if *in*the*usenet*community* there is enough interest.
Someone who will never read the group but votes on it due to such
influences is falsely testifying about the interest level.
>> There was rational thinking behind his methodology, even
>> if that methodology proved to be flawed in practice.
>
>As a linguist, I find this sentence very interesting, because it argues
>so strongly against the human linguistic faculty having any logical
>consistency whatsoever.
Suprise, there are times that living language is more flexible
than linguists dry and analytical models would predict.
-george william herbert
gher...@crl.com
Lance Visser
+>In article <8297718...@gharib.demon.co.uk>,
+>Gharib Hanif <ha...@gharib.demon.co.uk> wrote:
+>>newgroup...@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) wrote:
+>>
+>>Can I suggest that David uses the above clause to create the
+>>forthcoming sck newsgroup irrespective of its results as we, the
+>>Kashmiris, are lacking in numbers and are deserving cause. How about
+>>it David??
+>1803 NO votes to sci-jk does not suggest that there is any lack of voters
+>_for_ sck. I wonder if this is a record for NO votes for any newsgroup.
The larger question is if those 20,000 yes votes for sci.j-k are
going to now turn into 20,000 no votes for a forum on kashmir that isn't under
the control or influence of indian nationalists.
+> I will vote NO for sck unless I see a moderator who does not spew
+> venom at the slightest provocation.
If you don't like the moderator, use sci.j-k. You have your group
on Kashmir under sci (which was a huge provocation in itself).
Do indian nationalists really need to be able to dictate how ANY
group on Kashmir is going to be run?
victor
Rajwinder Singh <rajwi@otto> wrote:
>On 16 Apr 1996, Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
>
>> and for those who were dominated by
>> their baser instincts, I hope you have the honor to apologize
>> to those who had to bear the brunt of your posts.
>
>I suggest Vivek Sadanada Pai lead all such folks by example. It begins at
>home.
>
>Reagrds
>Rajwinder Singh
I think you did not read the previous article properly. he meant
jai Maharaj, not Vivek pai. Unless you happen to be Jai's close
net-freind.
>
>
>
Russ Allbery
> Whoopee. There are some of us who remember the real story of such Usenet
> abominations as sci.aquaria, rec.arts.manga, soc.culture.macedonia...the
> list goes on. Big fat lot of good it's done us.
It does *some* good; sci.aquaria has been extremely valuable as an arguing
point in convincing proponents what *not* to do. It also managed to get
the voting rules changed.
soc.culture.* still has some massive problems that are going to take a
more radical change to fix.
--
Niharika International
(Christopher B. Stone) writes:
>
>In article <4l19fi$f...@shiva.hudsonet.com>,
>Arun Chandra <acha...@hudsonet.com> wrote:
>>David C Lawrence (newgroup...@uunet.uu.net) wrote:
>
>>...It is true that there
>>may be some problems with some aspects of "scijk," but we need to
>>respect the results of a democratic process, whatever that democratic
>>process might be.
>So if, say, the Alabama legislature tomorrow were to pass a law saying
>that all African-Americans had to sit in the back of the bus, you
>would say we should respect that democratic process "whatever the
>results might be"?
No. But then again scuttling an election result because we
as citizens of this world don't like "blacks sitting in the
back of the bus" legislation would also amount to the same.
The fact is SCIJK is a reality today, why whine about it ?
Regards
- Niharika
Jonathan Jones
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>soc.culture.* still has some massive problems that are going to take a
>more radical change to fix.
Personally I find it hard to think of ANY solution to soc.culture.*
within the current structure short of rmgrouping the whole hierarchy, or
at least a moratorium on new proposals.
The RFD/CFV system was never intended to be "democratic"; indeed treating
the CFV as a democratic poll is the essence of the recent spate of net
abuse. Unfortunately the current structure lays itself wide open to
such abuse. The proposals that have been discussed so far might well
reduce "vote fraud" but will do nothing to stem the flood of people
who vote for inappropriate reasons.
It seems that tale thinks something can be done. I very much look forward
to seeing what it is.
Jonathan
F Andrew McMichael
I hate to quote my own post, but the amount of e-mail sort of
forces me to.
For the sarcasm and humor-impaired, let me add:
:)
It was a *joke*.
goodness. Some of the mail has been downright ornery.
"If you can't take a joke, don't read news.groups.
F Andrew McMichael (amcm...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
: Jay Maynard (jmay...@k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu) wrote:
: : Whoopee. There are some of us who remember the real story of such Usenet
: : abominations as sci.aquaria, rec.arts.manga, soc.culture.macedonia...the
: : list goes on. Big fat lot of good it's done us.
: Don't forget rec.hunting.kibo. Now *that* was an abomination.
James Harvey
> Jay Maynard (jmay...@k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu) wrote:
>
> : Whoopee. There are some of us who remember the real story of such Usenet
> : abominations as sci.aquaria, rec.arts.manga, soc.culture.macedonia...the
> : list goes on. Big fat lot of good it's done us.
>
> Don't forget rec.hunting.kibo. Now *that* was an abomination.
Er, wasn't that rec.kibo.hunting? IMHO, with the s.c.i.j-k vote, things
have finally deteriorated to the point that the current system needs some
significant changes, or perhaps even to be scrapped completely. I like
Peter da Silva's idea to separate the interest poll from name selection,
and would even prefer a degree of isolation between name selection and the
popular vote to minimize the temptation to try to make petty political hay
with the Usenet newsgroup namespace. I don't see any easy solutions though.
It will be interesting to hear what ideas Mr. Lawrence has come up with.
--
James Harvey har...@iupui.edu IT Senior Systems Programmer ET 012 274-0747
Disclaimer: My opinions; I don't speak for IU.
Christopher B. Stone
>>soc.culture.* still has some massive problems that are going to take a
>>more radical change to fix.
>Personally I find it hard to think of ANY solution to soc.culture.*
>within the current structure short of rmgrouping the whole hierarchy, or
>at least a moratorium on new proposals.
Until we come up with a more permanent solution, I think we should insist
that all new soc.culture.* groups be moderated, just as we currently do
with soc.religion.* groups.
--
Chris Stone
cbs...@phoenix.princeton.edu * http://www.princeton.edu/~cbstone
"Isolationism must become a thing of the past." -- Harry S. Truman
Lee S. Bumgarner
> In article <4l08il$6...@rodan.UU.NET>,
> David C Lawrence <newgroup...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
> >The whole process is ripe for change, in more of a way than I think
> >current ideas in news.groups are really addressing. To some degree
> >they might help a little in the short term, but some lateral thinking
> >is needed to really get past the problems that the Guidelines have
> >traditionally been so poor at handling.
I've not been able to find tale's orginal post, but I will comment on
what I see here.
I agree, totally with tale in that the rules need to be changed. Usenet
has grown a great deal of late and the old rules, put forth Back In The Day,
are starting to creek big time. Enough readers are distusted with events for
them to be willing to change things. The last time there was a significant
change in the voting setup was when another big bruhaha took place. I speak,
of course, of the rec/sci.aquria debate. Even though Richard Sexton
got all his Cabal buddies to fake votes, Spaf still created the sci.aquria.
It was after that that the current voting system was put into place. That
has been A Very Long time ago in Net.Years and thus the Rules need to be
updated big time. How, I have no idea. But I will support whatever changes
are decided upon by the Usenet Committee of The Whole. 8-)
> What we _need_ is a way to create groups with multiple names; either by having
> one internal worldwide name that nobody sees and a separate list of external
> names, or else by having multiple worldwide names for the same group.
> Either one will require changes to lots of news software. The inertia of the
> net is incredibly great--the same patterns of not paying attention that let
> binary and spam cancels be "accepted" will be an enormous barrier to this
> change.
That is exactly why such a change would never, ever happen. Usenet only
changes when it is forced to, and in a way relative to whatever changes
are needed. Hell, when you get right down to it, I would propose we chuck
the current Big * setup and have a Second Great Renaming. It is just as
likely to happen as your proposal. 8-)
-l
---
----> Undertoad (under construction) http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/ <------
See also : http://breeze.jmu.edu/ and http://breeze.jmu.edu/curio/
kewl poetry ---> http://falcon.jmu.edu/~woodvn/
| REALITY.SYS corrupted. Reboot universe (Y/N/Q)? |
* Flood'96: http://breeze.jmu.edu/breeze/special/flood96/pic/floodfront.html
Lee S. Bumgarner
> In article <4l19fi$f...@shiva.hudsonet.com>,
> Arun Chandra <acha...@hudsonet.com> wrote:
> >David C Lawrence (newgroup...@uunet.uu.net) wrote:
> >...It is true that there
> >may be some problems with some aspects of "scijk," but we need to
> >respect the results of a democratic process, whatever that democratic
> >process might be.
> So if, say, the Alabama legislature tomorrow were to pass a law saying
> that all African-Americans had to sit in the back of the bus, you would
> say we should respect that democratic process "whatever the results might
> be"?
That decision would be negated by the fact that it was patently
unconsitutional. (see also the 14th amendment to the United States
Consititution to see what I'm talking about) Tale, as news Tsar, rules
via the "mandate of heaven" given to him by readers. Thus, we trust his
decisions to be done in our name.
Russ Allbery
> Until we come up with a more permanent solution, I think we should
> insist that all new soc.culture.* groups be moderated, just as we
> currently do with soc.religion.* groups.
So instead of an unmoderated soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir, where at
least those of dissenting views can argue them even if they don't like the
name, we get soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir moderated by an Indian where
the only thing posted is "evidence" that all Pakistanis are terrorists.
That doesn't help the problem much, Chris. And under the current
"democratic" system, Indian readers of Usenet have enough votes to pass
that sort of abomination. Nor have I seen much evidence that it wouldn't
pass, although I'm quite sure the vote would be closer and many of the
supporters and probably the proponents of the current scij-k would oppose
it.
And before someone makes some sort of idiotic accusation, I have very
little doubt that there are Pakistanis who would be quite happy to create
the converse. There are just fewer Pakistanis on Usenet.
Christopher B. Stone
Lee S. Bumgarner <bumg...@falcon.jmu.edu> wrote:
>Christopher B. Stone (cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu) wrote:
>> In article <4l19fi$f...@shiva.hudsonet.com>,
>> Arun Chandra <acha...@hudsonet.com> wrote:
>>> ...It is true that there
>>> may be some problems with some aspects of "scijk," but we need to
>>> respect the results of a democratic process, whatever that democratic
>>> process might be.
>> So if, say, the Alabama legislature tomorrow were to pass a law saying
>> that all African-Americans had to sit in the back of the bus, you would
>> say we should respect that democratic process "whatever the results might
>> be"?
>That decision would be negated by the fact that it was patently
>unconsitutional.
Uh, yeah...and the fact it is patiently unconstitutional supports my
point: there exist legitimate constraints upon the democratic process. We
*don't* necessarily respect the results of the democratic process; we
constantly balance them against other compelling interests, such as
individual liberty, equality, and so forth.
The whole point is also moot in that Usenet is not a government, and
hence it is problematic to speak of a "democratic process" on Usenet.
However, to the extent that we can speak of a "democratic process" on
Usenet, the mere fact that 23,000 people voted for
soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir does not mean that the group is well-named.
Gharib Hanif
>While we're on this subject, I'd just like to add that I've come out of
>this entire situation with a great deal of respect for Shrisha Rao.
Of course. How reasonable can a man get??
> Had Shrisha in his position as the proponent been less forthcoming, flexible,
> and willing to discuss alternatives, the entire situation could have been much uglier.
How uglier can they get Russ??
>As for the rest of this debate, I refuse to dance around or weaken my
>feelings on the matter. I'm disgusted by those who attempted to turn this
>vote into a moral referendum on Kashmir.
Of course you are unaware how the Indian side campaigned by making
this a Indo-Pak debate and bringing Cricket and other things into it.
If anybody is playing political games, it is you guys and the Indians.
Your reference to the Kashmir debate is totally out of place and
unjustified. You know that we could have proposed any number of
kashmir newsgroup names including (sc.free.kashmir,
sc.independent.kashmir, sc.pakistan.kashmir, sc.azad.kashmir). But did
we??? NO. We proposed sck which we wanted to be neutral discusion
platform that did not ofend anyone. We even went as far as suggesting
that Rao should call his ng scjammu.kashmir. We agreed to vote for
that. But oh No!!! He was not a man for compromise.
Russ, I am sorry, but your hyprocracy is shining out of COM1;
especially in view of the comments you have made regarding namespace
elsewhere.
>For those who are even now attempting to take this vote as a sign of some
>moral victory, as evidence that their political views are the correct
>ones, or as evidence that Usenet as a whole favors one side or another,
>don't be so confident that you'll be able to pull off your little bit of
>revisionism. There are some of us who will always remember the *real*
>story of this vote.
And we will as well - for a long time to come !!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Kashmir Web site at:
http://www.ummah.org.uk/kashmir/ - updated: 26/3/1996.
http://www.ummah.org.uk/kashmir/atroc - atrocities list - updated 3/2/96
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gharib Hanif
>Until we come up with a more permanent solution, I think we should insist
>that all new soc.culture.* groups be moderated, just as we currently do
>with soc.religion.* groups.
How about: until we come wuth a more permanent solution, I think we
should insist on aplying the same rules to everybody and not making
any one party exempt.
Gharib Hanif
>And before someone makes some sort of idiotic accusation, I have very
>little doubt that there are Pakistanis who would be quite happy to create
>the converse. There are just fewer Pakistanis on Usenet.
Wrong again Russ. There are enough Pakistanis to create or even
propose sc.pakistani.kashmir. In fact there was some talk of doing
that during the scijk discussion stage.
However, the people did not go ahead because they respected our views
in keeping a Kashmiri newsgroup neutral.
Gharib Hanif
>did you forget why Sc.punjab proposal died?
No, I dont think he has forgotten. Let me remind you though: you guys
campiagned heavily to defeat the proposal by using Web pages and
pre-filled ballot papers.
Sorry, I forgot that when the Indians take part in fraud its OK. When
you have friends, you can do anything and get away with it!!!
Gharib Hanif
>If we get the same sort of vote on soc.culture.kashmir as we did on
>soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir, just with the YES and NO reversed, I'll
>be pushing to throw out the vote and create the group anyway.
But will the servers in CA, Calcutta, Bangalore and Banares be running
at full capacity this tie???
Gharib Hanif
>it may be good idea to consider change of rules before sckashmir
>CFV comes out, which the vote taker promised will be out shortly.
Why not have scijk wait for the new rules as well. Gopal what you are
failing to notice here is that people are protesting of lenincey on
the part of David Lawrence.
If scijk passes according to the normal and regular rules or even
under the new rules, I will have no objection.
You can show your own sincerety and say that scijk should be passed
correctly either under the current laws without any prefential
treament or it passes under new rules.
Gharib Hanif
>This man has no training in statistics. If four times as many people
>turned out for a presidential election, would that invalidate the election?
Please dont use the word 'people' and give the human race at large a
bad name. These were votes only. We still dont now where these votes
came from nor have seen these votes.
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> While we're on this subject, I'd just like to add that I've come out of
>> this entire situation with a great deal of respect for Shrisha Rao.
> Of course. How reasonable can a man get??
I still think he is being unreasonable about the name. But he knows that
and I know that and I can agree to disagree with him about it. When it
comes down to the actual procedure, the problems with the vote, possible
solutions, and the like, he was quite reasonable.
>> Had Shrisha in his position as the proponent been less forthcoming,
>> flexible, and willing to discuss alternatives, the entire situation
>> could have been much uglier.
> How uglier can they get Russ??
Shrisha could have been screaming for a recount along with everyone else
and piling more abuse on the votetaker, which would have removed one of
the sole blocks preventing lots of other people from doing the same thing.
>> As for the rest of this debate, I refuse to dance around or weaken my
>> feelings on the matter. I'm disgusted by those who attempted to turn
>> this vote into a moral referendum on Kashmir.
> Of course you are unaware how the Indian side campaigned by making
> this a Indo-Pak debate and bringing Cricket and other things into it.
I'm quite aware of it. That was half of what I was talking about.
> If anybody is playing political games, it is you guys and the Indians.
I'm playing political games? Please, do expand on that thought. This
should be interesting.
> Russ, I am sorry, but your hyprocracy is shining out of COM1; especially
> in view of the comments you have made regarding namespace elsewhere.
Gharib, please answer me this: Do I sound happy with the way things have
turned out? And if you think I do, could you please quote what I said
that gave you that totally incorrect impression? I'm honestly rather
curious.
Russ Allbery
>> And before someone makes some sort of idiotic accusation, I have very
>> little doubt that there are Pakistanis who would be quite happy to create
>> the converse. There are just fewer Pakistanis on Usenet.
> Wrong again Russ.
Then why didn't you vote down scij-k? Please, don't try to tell me that
it was out of some integrity and respect for the voting process; quite
frankly, there's no way anyone's going to buy that at this point. There
was quite active campaigning on both sides, and you even had a respected
and legitimate reason (namespace problems) that you could use.
There are simply more people on Usenet who believe Kashmir is part of
India than that believe Kashmir is part of Pakistan, and they had no
compuctions about expressing that opinion in a Usenet vote. That's all
the vote means. That's all any vote on this subject is going to mean
under the current system.
Tyranny of the majority, defined right before our eyes.
Russ Allbery
> If scijk passes according to the normal and regular rules or even
> under the new rules, I will have no objection.
Do you honestly think it wouldn't?
gpt...@mgmtstd1.lan.mcgill.ca
> yo...@satyam.net (Gurudev Yogi) wrote:
>
> >This man has no training in statistics. If four times as many people
> >turned out for a presidential election, would that invalidate the election?
>
> Please dont use the word 'people' and give the human race at large a
> bad name. These were votes only. We still dont now where these votes
> came from nor have seen these votes.
Don't be an ignorant. It has been stated after intense scrutiny that
none of the 23000 vote were machine generated (unlike tha case with
SCPReorg where MoinA and others openly admitted using machines
to generate votes. BTW, I dont have anything against SCPReorg.
Regards,
Pamesh Gupta
McGill MBA
Russ Allbery
> Don't be an ignorant. It has been stated after intense scrutiny that
> none of the 23000 vote were machine generated
Umm, no, it was stated that after an inspection of the votes there didn't
appear to be any significant number of machine generated votes.
Mahesh Yadav
>>> In article <4l19fi$f...@shiva.hudsonet.com>,
>>> Arun Chandra <acha...@hudsonet.com> wrote:
>soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir does not mean that the group is well-named.
I like to disagree here. Jammu & Kashmir is state in India and its name
is appropriate. However there are Kashmiris in Pakistan, India and Perhaps in
China, therefore soc.culture.kashmir is also perfectly valid group (If unmoderated)
I am indeed surprised that many Americans think that Kashmir does not
belong to India. I do not like to have an argument but will like to know the reasons
for such beliefs. The TIME World atlas of 1978 shows the entire Kashmir in India!
Eventhough the Pakistan was American ally. I shall appreciate if you could give me
the reasons for such reversal of the feelings. I will also appreciate if Indians do
not argue, but try to understand why some Americans think that way.
After comming here, I have seen that Pakistanis and Kashmiris have publicised
their case well, with no response from Indian side. Only recently I have seen that
Indians are trying to voice the other side of the story.
Thanks Mahesh Yadav
Gharib Hanif
> I like to disagree here. Jammu & Kashmir is state in India and its name
> is appropriate.
Wrong!!!! Jammu & Kashmir is disputed territory and is so acknowleged
by the UN and other civilised countries. The only people who think J&K
is part of India are the Indians.
India has occupied J&K by force and illegal means for over 48 years.
Gharib Hanif
>Gharib, please answer me this: Do I sound happy with the way things have
>turned out? And if you think I do, could you please quote what I said
>that gave you that totally incorrect impression? I'm honestly rather
>curious.
Russ, I am sorry to talk like this. However, David and you talk about
the name of this newsgrpoup not being right, yet you pass this ng
through the back-door.
You both claim that Rao had not compromised and not listened to any
brokering effrorts. Yet you bot agree, on the same page, that Rao had
been more than reasonable......
Oh, its small things like that and the fact that you guys have given
scijk a preferntial treatment. Nothing more. I am curious as well.
Gharib Hanif
>Don't be an ignorant. It has been stated after intense scrutiny that
>none of the 23000 vote were machine generated (unlike tha case with
>SCPReorg where MoinA and others openly admitted using machines
>to generate votes. BTW, I dont have anything against SCPReorg.
Please quote Moin where he 'openly admitted using machine to generate
votes".
If anyone has used machines to generate votes, it is ths scijk people.
No doubt we will find out sooner than later where this great fraud was
inacted.
Gharib Hanif
>gptapp <gpt...@mgmtstd1.lan.mcgill.ca> writes:
>> Don't be an ignorant. It has been stated after intense scrutiny that
>> none of the 23000 vote were machine generated
>Umm, no, it was stated that after an inspection of the votes there didn't
>appear to be any significant number of machine generated votes.
Really???? We still havent seen the ballot list.
Toby Bartels
>David Lawrence (ta...@uunet.com) wrote:
>>I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
>At last!
>>By receiving over four times as many as votes as any proposal has seen
>>before, and ten times as many votes as usual, this vote can clearly be
>>declared, "extraordinary." For its statistical uniqueness alone I
>>have the grounds to completely invalidate the vote and insist another
>>be held.
>This man has no training in statistics.
Well, *someone* obviously hasn't, as we'll see ...
>If four times as many people turned
>out for a presidential election, would that invalidate the election?
It would be cause for suspicion, just as it was in this case.
(I trust you don't intend to take the analogy with an election too far.
That's what caused a lot of the problem in the first place.)
>No allegedly democratic system considers a large sample size to be evidence
>of 'statistical uniqueness,'
It does if it has training in statistics.
You can't argue with fact.
>by which, he, of course, means a 'statistical outlier,'
Reasonable enough.
>i.e. lying outside two standard deviations of the norm,
This is not standard.
>which is itself an error since he has not proven that the probability
>mass of the response to UVV ballots is normally distributed.
As anyone with training in statistics should know,
you can have standard deviations and norms without normal distrubutions.
And why must he prove anything for his statement not to be an error?
>Furthermore, he seems
>to be confusing judgements based on this probability mass with judgements
>based on the mass reflected by a particular vote. Those regulations were
>designed to ensure that the distribution of votes in a given election
>accurately reflected the 'mandate of the people' - i.e. prevent voter fraud.
Actually, that was never their intent.
I suggest you read some of the many posts on this thread which explain this.
>They were never intended to regulate the other mass. Any sensible individual
>would welcome a greater turnout, in the absence of fraud, of course,
I would welcome only a greater legitimate turnout.
>which, as he admits, there was no evidence of.
He admits no such thing.
Below he admits no evidence of a specific kind of fraud,
quite a different kind than that usually charged in this thread.
>>It should be noted that I did my own review of the votes and did not
>>obviously see any large scale automated generation of votes, at least
>>not that would have made any difference in the overall poll. They
>>really do appear to be almost all sent in by individuals.
>Justice at last.
Just a random assertion I assume?
It's not as if the votes were earlier declared invalid for this reason.
>>Ultimately the question I see is, "If this vote were held again, is
>>there any realistic chance of having a more meaningful outcome?" I
>>have almost no confidence that it will.
>Excellent point. I wonder why it took them so long to come to this
>conclusion...
Actually, this was recognized almost immediately.
>>Finally, Warren Lavallee, the votetaker, should not be decried for his
>>attempt to make some sense of the extraordinary turnout by sampling a
>>percentage of the votes to theoretically eliminate the influences of
>>campaigning.
>Why on earth not? Look at how he chose to do it!
For future reference, I agree with you on this.
>>There was rational thinking behind his methodology, even
>>if that methodology proved to be flawed in practice.
>As a linguist, I find this sentence very interesting, because it argues
>so strongly against the human linguistic faculty having any logical
>consistency whatsoever.
Really? Tell me, my dear linguist, what is the logical inconsistency here?
>>He did what he
>>did in good faith, with no hint of bias, and the people who stridently
>>accused him of shady dealings should be ashamed of themselves for
>>their own prejudices. Mr. Lavallee is an upstanding citizen who has
>>graciously provided his vote counting services for dozens of Usenet
>>groups; he is to be commended for his altruistic work on behalf of the
>>net.
>In other words, he's an idiot with good intentsions. Bravo, Mr. Lavallee,
>bravo (clap, clap, clap).
Or an intelligent man with good intentions who erred anyway.
I'm afraid it happens, much as we'd like to believe it doesn't.
-- Toby
to...@ugcs.caltech.edu
Russ Allbery
> Russ, I am sorry to talk like this. However, David and you talk about
> the name of this newsgrpoup not being right, yet you pass this ng
> through the back-door.
Back door? It passed via a standard Usenet newsgroup creation vote, like
hundreds more before it. *Overturning* the vote would be the unusual
action. And do you honestly think any revote would have turned out any
different.
> You both claim that Rao had not compromised and not listened to any
> brokering effrorts. Yet you bot agree, on the same page, that Rao had
> been more than reasonable......
Yup. I think he was totally unreasonable about the name and quite
reasonable about the problems with voting. I can agree with someone about
one thing and disagree with them about something else.
Atri Indiresan
(Gharib Hanif) writes:
Gharib> Please dont use the word 'people' and give the human race
Gharib> at large a bad name. These were votes only. We still dont
Gharib> now where these votes came from nor have seen these votes.
Strangely, I am in agreement with Gharib here, though not with his
presumption (of the still to be proven allegation of a few servers
generating a large number of forged votes). I am really surprised
that Tale declared the newsgroup to have passed, and given a creation
date without publishing the voting record, and allowing a 5 day
scrutiny period.
I think it is still not too late. There is no reason the newsgroup has
to be created immediately. I think publishing the vote will help
Gharib, or anyone else, satisfy themselves about the origin of the
votes.
Also, it is really surprising that the news.groups regulars like Russ
and Chris have completely failed to comment on this aspect of the
decision. As far as I know, it is unprecedented.
Atri
Gharib Hanif
>Gharib Hanif <ha...@gharib.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> And before someone makes some sort of idiotic accusation, I have very
>>> little doubt that there are Pakistanis who would be quite happy to create
>>> the converse. There are just fewer Pakistanis on Usenet.
>> Wrong again Russ.
>Then why didn't you vote down scij-k?
I still havent seen my vote.
>Please, don't try to tell me that
>it was out of some integrity and respect for the voting process; quite
>frankly, there's no way anyone's going to buy that at this point. There
>was quite active campaigning on both sides, and you even had a respected
>and legitimate reason (namespace problems) that you could use.
What is the point if the Usenet people like yourself dont give a damn
about that aspect?
>There are simply more people on Usenet who believe Kashmir is part of
>India than that believe Kashmir is part of Pakistan, and they had no
>compuctions about expressing that opinion in a Usenet vote. That's all
>the vote means. That's all any vote on this subject is going to mean
>under the current system.
The issue is not about who thinks what. It is about violations of
Usenet guidelines. The guidelines are clear in saying that
distributing pre-filled ballots papers and ballot papers without CFV
is illegal. In fact I have seen a few groups who had been forced to a
revote because they violated the guidlines.
Moreover, we still have not seen the voting list and the group is due
to be created on 22 April. Dont we have right to see that list???
>Tyranny of the majority, defined right before our eyes.
And who is the accessory to that?
Are you now talking about majorities, democracy and democratic
process??? If I rerember correctly whenever someone raises the word
'democracy' you guys jump on him and tell him that Usenet is not about
democracy but about interest.
Gharib Hanif
>Gharib Hanif <ha...@gharib.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> If scijk passes according to the normal and regular rules or even
>> under the new rules, I will have no objection.
>Do you honestly think it wouldn't?
What I think is not the issue here. Everybody has to follow the same
guidelines.
Just becuase most people think that Bill Clinton would win the next
election is no reason to not have an election and bypass the
democratic process. Further if Bill was to inact a massive
vote-rigging campaign, would he win by default because teh election
commision think that he would have won anyway??
S.Shah
>In article <4l08il$6...@rodan.UU.NET>,
>David C Lawrence <newgroup...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
>>I plan to create soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir on 22 April 1996.
>Would you please clarify whether you plan to let the CFV for
>soc.culture.kashmir proceed as scheduled?
For those of you who already know that Indian claims on Kashmir are
based on fraud and deception; creation of a newsgroup by Indians like
f-scijk through fraud should not come as a surprise to any one.
Since, Indians are experts at vote rigging, fraudulent elections and
deceit, a fact born out by their history of fraudulent elections in
Kashmir since 1947; therefore, vote fraud on internet is hardly a big
deal for them.
For Kashmiris f-scijk is just another symbol of Indian oppression and
subjugation, unfortunately, this time Indians managed to claim their
hollow victory through a person called Sir-Sir, David Lawrence!
Since no Kashmiris (except a few Pandits) are going to participate on
the f-scijk (fraud-scijk) , I hope the ng will die its own death in
due course of time...what a waste of precious bandwidth space.
I would recommend my friends of Kashmir to withdraw their proposal
for SCK, because it is now quite obvious that Usenet newsgroup
creation process is itself riddled with fraud and corruption. Under
these circumstance to create a newsgroup on Kashmir is IMO worthless,
until such time when people like David Lawrence are replaced by
someone who (he / she) is transparent and honest.
S.Shah
kashmi...@enterprise.net
Russ Allbery
>> There are simply more people on Usenet who believe Kashmir is part of
>> India than that believe Kashmir is part of Pakistan, and they had no
>> compuctions about expressing that opinion in a Usenet vote. That's all
>> the vote means. That's all any vote on this subject is going to mean
>> under the current system.
> The issue is not about who thinks what. It is about violations of Usenet
> guidelines. The guidelines are clear in saying that distributing
> pre-filled ballots papers and ballot papers without CFV is illegal. In
> fact I have seen a few groups who had been forced to a revote because
> they violated the guidlines.
How many? And how many have you seen upheld even though that happened?
I'll guarantee you there were more of the latter than the former.
If the vote is invalidated whenever there is campaigning, it gives the
opponents of the group a tool to use to force infinite revotes and prevent
the creation of the newsgroup forever. That's not a solution.
> Moreover, we still have not seen the voting list and the group is due to
> be created on 22 April. Dont we have right to see that list???
Why? Think about it for a second -- nothing that anyone says about that
voting list is going to change the result of this in the slightest. All
it is at this point is a list of e-mail addresses to mailbomb, harass, and
otherwise abuse.
>> Tyranny of the majority, defined right before our eyes.
> And who is the accessory to that?
You are. You're the one jumping right in with everyone else turning this
into a political election, you're one of the ones abusing the entire
voting process by doing so, and you're one of the ones who started
bringing politics into this from the very beginning.
> Are you now talking about majorities, democracy and democratic
> process??? If I rerember correctly whenever someone raises the word
> 'democracy' you guys jump on him and tell him that Usenet is not about
> democracy but about interest.
That's the intention, yes. Doesn't appear to be working for some
subjects.
Jay Maynard
>Gharib Hanif <ha...@gharib.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> be created on 22 April. Dont we have right to see that list???
>Why? Think about it for a second -- nothing that anyone says about that
>voting list is going to change the result of this in the slightest. All
>it is at this point is a list of e-mail addresses to mailbomb, harass, and
>otherwise abuse.
That's all it ever is, Russ.
That doesn't stop it from being postted with every other creation vote. Why
should it stop it this time?
Oh, right, I forgot. We're throwing out valid precedent and reason, so let's
finish the job. Silly me. I forgot.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
http://k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Are we going to push it to the edge of the envelope?" -- Pinky
"No, Pinky. We may, however, reach the sticky part." -- The Brain
Russ Allbery
> On 21 Apr 1996 13:29:57 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Why? Think about it for a second -- nothing that anyone says about that
>> voting list is going to change the result of this in the slightest. All
>> it is at this point is a list of e-mail addresses to mailbomb, harass, and
>> otherwise abuse.
> That's all it ever is, Russ.
I disagree. In other cases, it's needed to verify the votes were counted
correctly, to make possible post-election challenges, to make possible
changes, and the like. Consider the recent wrestling.info group, for
example.
We've already gone through that with this proposal.
Kenneth Arromdee
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> Why? Think about it for a second -- nothing that anyone says about that
>>> voting list is going to change the result of this in the slightest. All
>>> it is at this point is a list of e-mail addresses to mailbomb, harass, and
>>> otherwise abuse.
>> That's all it ever is, Russ.
>I disagree. In other cases, it's needed to verify the votes were counted
>correctly, to make possible post-election challenges, to make possible
>changes, and the like. Consider the recent wrestling.info group, for
>example.
>We've already gone through that with this proposal.
No, we haven't. Only Tale and the votetaker went through that. The purpose
of letting the whole world see the votes is so that _other_people_ than Tale
and the votetaker can verify, challenge, etc. them. We have _not_ already
gone through that.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Kermit the Pig?!?!?!?!" -- The Muppet Show
S.Shah
>It's a hellish newsgroup to propose, and the entire situation surrounding
>the vote was a nightmare for everyone involved.
<snip>
How hellish is it now to let the people know who these fictitious
voters are? Or is it you are now busy polishing the results to make
them look respectable?
But as opponents of the ng we have a right to know whose are these
23,000 voters?
Under normal circumstances the vote-list or as in this case
pre-filled ballot list should have been made public for at least five
days and only if their were no valid objections the ng could be
created!
Please don't come up with your usual garbage of transforming rules
into guidelines when it suits you. You have already destroyed the
credibility of vote takers and made a *big joke* of the entire
newsgroup creation. Put it in crude language you have made a ass of
yourselves.
S.Shah
kashmi...@enterprise.net
Sharon Westfall
: Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
: >We've already gone through that with this proposal.
:
: No, we haven't. Only Tale and the votetaker went through that. The purpose
: of letting the whole world see the votes is so that _other_people_ than Tale
: and the votetaker can verify, challenge, etc. them. We have _not_ already
: gone through that.
That's right... We haven't gone through that.
Gee, how many messages will it take to post 23,000 email addresses?
--
*********************** PIYO __ PIYO *************************
* Sharon Westfall / \ Hawaii Online *
* Kuau, Maui, Hawaii < ^ \ Statewide Internet Access! *
* wes...@aloha.net | ) We luv hawaii.nortle!! *
* \/\____/ soc.culture.hawaii - Yowza!! *
** Sharktooths - April 27, 2:30 ** > ********* Be there!! *********
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
i learnt this in my elementary course on pol science:
if you like the vote, call it a *popular* vote and if
you dont like, call it the tyranny of majority.
cant we think of some plausible solutions: such as, creation
of groups for both parties whenever they have some
threshold sized votes in their favour, for example, without
calling a section of voters tyrants?
Jay Maynard
>I disagree. In other cases, it's needed to verify the votes were counted
>correctly, to make possible post-election challenges, to make possible
>changes, and the like. Consider the recent wrestling.info group, for
>example.
That's the stated purpose of the folks who want it this time. There are
enough accusations of fraud and the like, and enough abuse fo the normal
process, that another deviation from the norm simply undermines the result
further.
>We've already gone through that with this proposal.
No, we haven't; we've gone through part of it, but we haven't gone through
the part that allows others to verify the result. That the list will almost
certainly result in a mass mailing has never stopped us before; why should
it now?
We've made one major deviation from the normal already in this vote. Making
another simply makes that much more of a mockery of the process.
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Tyranny of the majority, defined right before our eyes.
> i learnt this in my elementary course on pol science: if you like the
> vote, call it a *popular* vote and if you dont like, call it the tyranny
> of majority.
I call *all* democratic votes tyrannies of the majority. But then, I
never liked democracies. Usenet votes are not supposed to be democratic
votes; they never were.
> cant we think of some plausible solutions: such as, creation of groups
> for both parties whenever they have some threshold sized votes in their
> favour, for example, without calling a section of voters tyrants?
I call them the way I see them. And I'm not sure if partial elimination
of NO votes is going to solve the problem; seems that what that would do
is say that anyone can name their group whatever they want provided they
have more than X number of voters. Is that what everyone wants?
If that's what we intend to do, why pick an X?
Vivek Sadananda Pai
In article <4le4bs$5...@news.enterprise.net>, kashmi...@enterprise.net (S.Shah) writes:
|> Since, Indians are experts at vote rigging, fraudulent elections and
|> deceit, a fact born out by their history of fraudulent elections in
|> Kashmir since 1947; therefore, vote fraud on internet is hardly a big
|> deal for them.
|>
|> For Kashmiris f-scijk is just another symbol of Indian oppression and
|> subjugation, unfortunately, this time Indians managed to claim their
|> hollow victory through a person called Sir-Sir, David Lawrence!
I find it amazing that you can say the above with a straight face,
Mr. Shah. After all, did it not occur to you that the opposition
garnered 1800+ votes, far more than most groups get "yes" votes?
Do you suppose that all 1800 of those votes were totally aboveboard?
If not, then you'd better qualify those statements about fraud, etc.,
being bad...
-Vivek
Vivek Sadananda Pai
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Gharib Hanif <ha...@gharib.demon.co.uk> writes:
[...]
>> Moreover, we still have not seen the voting list and the group is due to
>> be created on 22 April. Dont we have right to see that list???
>
>voting list is going to change the result of this in the slightest. All
>it is at this point is a list of e-mail addresses to mailbomb, harass, and
>otherwise abuse.
Let me state up front that I don't quite know where I stand on the
issue of revealing the voter list. From what I understand, the voter
list has generally been published to allow people to independently
scrutinize it, etc., so publishing the list for scijk doesn't really
serve that purpose.
However, the flip side of the argument is that since the voter list is
published in the spirit of openness, then would be a good thing to
publish the list and remove any doubt about the people voting. I'm
sure that some people will use this as an opportunity to endlessly
analyze the list, and the more vengeful element will use the list as
an opportunity to harass people and determine who their "enemies" are.
The most "interesting" prospect that nobody seems to have mentioned,
however, is that there is definitely some group of people who'd like
to see all of the pro-scijk votes, because this would constitute a
mailing list of 23,000+ names, many of whom would be sympathetic to
"Indian concerns". While this prospect frightens me to some extent, I
can't help but notice that those who are making the most noise about
wanting the voter list published are the same people who might find
themselves at a disadvantage because of it.
I don't have a short, sweet answer to the question of whether the list
should be published or not.
-Vivek
Shrisha Rao
Kenneth Arromdee <arro...@hops.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>No, we haven't. Only Tale and the votetaker went through that. The purpose
>of letting the whole world see the votes is so that _other_people_ than Tale
>and the votetaker can verify, challenge, etc. them. We have _not_ already
>gone through that.
And we never will. It may be of interest to note that I recommended to
Tale *NOT* to release the complete list of voters; this I did of my
own volition, some days before he announced the final result. I
considered it unfortunate that the votetaker himself did not post the
complete list at the outset, but given that a delay of several weeks
had already occurred, there was no particular point in making it
available at that point. There is none now, either.
I myself received between 600-700 e-mail messages in connection with
the vote, most of them spam messages cc'd to the votetaker or to
mailing lists or to random others. Many posters seem to think that
their postings to news.groups or elsewhere about SCI.J-K are so
important that they must be cc'd to the proponent and to several
others, besides showing up on the groups themselves. Having a list of
all voters would be providing a rich resource for more such spam.
Plus, I frankly felt that news.groups was getting bogged down in
unproductive discussions re the votetaker's lack of virtue, and the
ceaseless analyses, counter-analyses, critiques, accusations of
intrigue w.r.t. the delay in posting the list, et cetera, that would
surely follow the posting of the complete list would be to no purpose,
either for the specific SCI.J-K proposal, or even in a general way. To
consider how to reform the newsgroup creation process, etc., in an
abstract sense does not require the list of voters to be available,
and its unavailability doesn't seem to be stopping such right now.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Jonathan Jones
In article <4l9qq9$i...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Uh, yeah...and the fact it is patiently unconstitutional supports my
>point: there exist legitimate constraints upon the democratic process. We
>*don't* necessarily respect the results of the democratic process; we
>constantly balance them against other compelling interests, such as
>individual liberty, equality, and so forth.
>
>The whole point is also moot in that Usenet is not a government, and
>hence it is problematic to speak of a "democratic process" on Usenet.
>However, to the extent that we can speak of a "democratic process" on
>Usenet, the mere fact that 23,000 people voted for
>soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir does not mean that the group is well-named.
In so far as it makes any sense to compare news with real world political
systems, the major components are alt, which is a kind of anarchy with
oligarchic tendencies, and the big 8, which are a benevolent dictatorship
with frequent advisory referenda. Most of the smaller components
(biz.*, uk.* etc) faill into one of these two patterns. Not a democracy
in sight.
If you want a democracy, feel free to found one. If you want an alternative
dictator, feel free to set him or her up. Pretending the big-8 is a
democracy is just plain silly.
Jonathan