jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (02/16/90)
It has been noted that extending the amount of time needed for
group creation would not, indeed, result in the collapse of
Western civilization. I concede that point, but, at the same
time, see no reason to needlessly prolong the process.
Having the YES/NO and "which name" votes run together
strikes me as a possible way of eliminating the occasional
abuses cited so often.
Still, I repeat that it might be possible to maintain the current
system with additional safeguards against those abuses. Any
suggestions?
---
Let me reply once more to Tom, and then, hopefully, we can let
this particular thread drop.
Tom,
You have apparently constructed in your mind a very malevolent
malformation of reality. In your mind, there apparently can
be no sincerity in this world, only calculation. If you
were a nice person, I would feel sorry for you. As you
have shown that you are not, I don't.
I have posted favorable comments about Bill, Karen, and others,
and defenses of Peter, because they were true (I have also
posted critical remarks about Bill and Peter).
Bill, living half a continent away, and Peter, having no
input into my reviews, can do nothing material for me --- and
I assure you that I have enough self-confidence that I do not
need their "approval" for emotional purposes.
You apparently don't believe this, but Humans *do* sometimes
behave honestly. Brecht and Weill were wrong.
Patiently,
Jeff
--
TV bulletin I'd like to see/hear:
"Window washers for twelve office buildings fired for using cheap
soap. Film at eleven."woods@snowmass.scd.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (02/17/90)
In article <CYS14C6xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >I see no reason to needlessly prolong the process. Agreed. It's a question of how we define "needless". >I the YES/NO and "which name" votes run together >strikes me as a possible way of eliminating the occasional >abuses cited so often. I think this will cause a lot of problems that we don't currently have. For one thing, my vote might change depending on what name is being voted on. The only schemes I have seen described that would allow me to abstain from the creation vote while voting against names I don't like are far too complex to be easily verifiable. It's a lot SIMPLER if we just require the name to be chosen (using consensus discussion, STV, or whatever) BEFORE the creation vote takes place. --Greg
csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) (02/18/90)
In article <CYS14C6xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >Having the YES/NO and "which name" votes run together >strikes me as a possible way of eliminating the occasional >abuses cited so often. I like this idea very much. Had it been in place before the sci.aquaria vote, we would have gotten sci.aquaria without all that useless whining from a malignant minority of anal retentives who were more concerned over the group's placement than its content. If this rule is adopted, perhaps all those who vote against groups based on the name will finally realize the futility of their actions. >Let me reply once more to Tom, and then, hopefully, we can let >this particular thread drop. > >Tom, > >You have apparently constructed in your mind a very malevolent >malformation of reality. In your mind, there apparently can [ etc. ] Jeff, Congratulations on finally learning how to change your name in the From: line to upper case. Perhaps your next education project should be to get someone to teach you how to use e-mail? Your Friend in Zoroaster, Dave
maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (02/19/90)
In article <CYS14C6xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >Tom, >You have apparently constructed in your mind a very malevolent >malformation of reality. Let's see: the pointless alliteration, the "sounds like he's not a native speaker" syntax and vocabulary; and of course the assumption that *you* know what's wrong with *me*. Didn't you write speeches for Spiro Agnew? That "malevolent malformation of reality" reaches the same exalted heights as "nattering nabobs of negativity." Hmmm, and I thought Pat Buchanan had been rehabilitated and put to work boring the tits off everyone on television. I didn't know he'd been moved to Texas (some sort of Witness Relocation effort, I assume; watch out for Liddy--that fucker doesn't forgive or forget). >If you >were a nice person, I would feel sorry for you. What's your problem? You're not at all a nice person, and I feel very sorry for you. >I have posted favorable comments about Bill, Karen, and others, >and defenses of Peter, because they were true I forgot for a while there that you possess the Truth, while the rest of us have to muddle along with the usual facts, inferences, prejudices, hopes, beliefs, conjectures, etc. Thanks very much for reminding me. See, it looked as if you were just sucking up to these people, but now that we know you were just standing up for Truth (and no doubt Beauty and Goodness as well), you are indeed entirely justified. Actually, I suppose you and Peter form a sort of team in defense of Truth and the Net As We Know It and Niceness Except When It Comes to Delivering Chastizing Blows To Those Who Really Aren't Very Nice which Peter and I must do because . . . well, because we're who we are: Jeff Duh-Daiell and Peter duh Silva: The Duh Brothers, Net.Defenders. I'm on your side, guys. Together we can stomp out Gryphonites and rudenessexceptwhenitsours and . . . no, wait, not Trish--I've got plans for her-- So you can count on me, Jeff, by and large, more or less, now and then.
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (02/21/90)
In article <6332@ncar.ucar.edu>, woods@snowmass.scd.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes: > I think this will cause a lot of problems that we don't currently have. > For one thing, my vote might change depending on what name is being voted > on. The only schemes I have seen described that would allow me to abstain > from the creation vote while voting against names I don't like are far > too complex to be easily verifiable. I don't really understand why you think preference voting (MAUVE, whatever) is complicated or is not easily verifyable. PV is EXACTLY what we have now, except that there are multiple votes going at the same time, much like what is happening right now with the objectivism groups. You just list the group names and YES, NO or ABSTAIN for each name. The vote take reports it in the format: group.name YES voter@address group.name NO voter@address group1.name NO voter@address .. To verify the vote you do grep "group.name yes" vote.list or some such. Verifying each count could easily be done in a single unix command line, even a pretty short one, using "standard" unix commands. > It's a lot SIMPLER if we just require > the name to be chosen (using consensus discussion, STV, or whatever) > BEFORE the creation vote takes place. We ALREADY require that, and it simply isn't working. The number of groups where the name is controversial is growing. I don't know whether it started with comp.women or earlier, but the rate is speeding up. I think this is a problem that we will have to solve eventually. Why not start now? -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444