richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (09/14/85)
Although the proposed modified voting rules have recieved a noticeable amount
of support, I would like to take this space to speak out against it.
I agree that it is only through the grace of the backbone sites that USENET
exists. I am thankful that they do this, and hope that eventually I can
repay them ad the USENET community by supporting a backbone site. However, I
feel that the proposed system has two major flaws.
Flaw 1) Who is supposed to decide what the site votes for? The system
administrator? The local site users? The upper management which is trying
to cut down costs?
The basic problem with letting the sysops decide is that a sysop's
vote will usually be based either upon "Will this increase my overhead"
or "Am I interested in this newsgroup?" This will also (in some cases)
cause a backlash from sysops who begin to hold the opposite viewpoint,
and support ANY new newsgroup proposal. Neither of these views
takes many of the other issues into account.
Having the local site users decide opens up a whole other set of
problems, primarily due to the fact that the few people who are
noticeably in favor of a group, and those who are rabidly against
it, will be making most of the noise on a site. If only four people
at a site care, heving the site users vote will probably condemn a
newsgroup, *even if there are four people who use that newsgroup at
every site on the network!*
The problem with upper management voting is that it combines the flaws
inherent in both sysop voting and user voting with a whole new one:
Lack of realization about the useful benefits of the net.
Consider: "Gee, net Politics is a group which is only used for
soapboxing. Many of my users waste valuable company time posting
to this group. I will eliminate this group from my machine."
The fact that his employees work harder to compensate for the time
they spend in notes, and have a better attitude towards life, work,
and the company, is ignored. Again, we also have backlash effect
which prevents good decision-making.
Flaw 2) No matter what method is settled on for determining the vote cast
by a site, having a single vote or a weighted vote for a site introduces
politicking into the existence of newsgroups. Although this occurs now on
a limited scale, ("See this neat newsgroup I just thought of? Everybody
vote for it" or "I'll send in ten fake votes because I really think this
newsgroup should exist"), changing to the proposed system would increase
the politics involved to an astronomical level. There is also another problem
which is political which is introduced: discontinuing a group because a site
dislikes the content of the group (Intel:"Gee, net Arch is certainly badmouthing
intel a lot. Let's discontinue it."). Apologies to Intel, that was the first
examp[le I could think of. In any case, i consider this a very dangerous
proposal.
In conclusion: Although the current system is flawed, I consider it far
better than the ones which have been proposed to date.
orstcs!richardt
"The Apparition"
Richard Threadgill
104 S 20th <-- SnailMail address soon to be changed
Philomath Or 97370
"All of them are in tune, the ones who really love you,
walk together outside the wall
Some hand in hand,
Some gathered together in bands;
The bleeding hearts, and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all,
Some stagger and fall
After all, it's not easy,
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall"
-Pink Floyd, "The "Wall"