tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/16/90)
In article <130174@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: >>>*** Remember to VOTE YES to talk.religion.pagan (moderated). *** >>>*** Send your vote To: olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu *** In article <9659@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >>In a message posted on 12 January 1990, after the conclusion of the voting >>period. Obviously this is an individual deeply concerned about the ethics >>of newsgroup creation and control. In article <130242@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: > Actually Tim, I don't give a poop. > I'll keep my .sig file as it is though until I see the vote. Why are >you so hostile to letting other people have something they want? Are you >so much into controlling other people's lives, wants and desires? So, Turnbow not only admits that he consciously solicited votes for the group after the end of the voting period, he says that he will continue to do so, and that he doesn't give a shit for ethics. The only rationale cited is that he wants the new group. What is most interesting about this message is that Turnbow apparently knew that the vote collector will continue to accept votes after the end of the voting period, yet he did not state the collector's excuse for doing so. I will let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. Something is very fishy here, and yes, I do intend the pun to refer to sci.aquaria. If anyone sent votes to the collector between 2 Jan and 10 Jan, please post to the net or send mail to me to that effect, and please mention whether you did or did not receive a confirmation. In addition, the collector will please post a vote tally ASAP, with names of the voters; anyone whose vote was not counted or was counted incorrectly should post to news.groups or send mail to me. This mess and sci.aquaria show a basic flaw in the newsgroup creation process. The votes are taken by people who have a vested interest in the outcome of the vote, and who can very easily commit fraud or otherwise dissemble concerning the results. Wouldn't it be better if some backbone site set up an automatic vote receiver/counter/confirmer? The overhead would probably be a very small fraction of the cost of being on the backbone in the first place, there would be no more complaints about how hard collector X was to reach, and the votes would be in the hands of a supremely disinterested entity. The only downside is that someone has to write the software, but it should all be doable with a fairly simple awk script; if no one on one of the backbone sites wants to take a few hours, I'll do it. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "The Diabolonian position is new to the London playgoer of today, but not to lovers of serious literature. From Prometheus to the Wagnerian Siegfried, some enemy of the gods, unterrified champion of those oppressed by them, has always towered among the heroes of the loftiest poetry." - Shaw, "On Diabolonian Ethics"
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/16/90)
[the story so far: Tim is asked if he is a fascist, answers "yes", and goes on to say ...] => This mess and sci.aquaria show a basic flaw in the newsgroup creation => process. The votes are taken by people who have a vested interest in => the outcome of the vote, and who can very easily commit fraud or => otherwise dissemble concerning the results. => => Wouldn't it be better if some backbone site set up an automatic vote => receiver/counter/confirmer? The overhead would probably be a very => small fraction of the cost of being on the backbone in the first place, => there would be no more complaints about how hard collector X was to => reach, and the votes would be in the hands of a supremely disinterested => entity. The only downside is that someone has to write the software, => but it should all be doable with a fairly simple awk script; if no one => on one of the backbone sites wants to take a few hours, I'll do it. I'd guess I could lay pretty good money on identifying half a dozen net.folks who would be delighted to show you how quickly they could whip up a little vote fraud generator that would baffle any automated method of counting votes. I think your idea would just make things worse. Generic complaint: why does there exist a set of net.control.personalities who insist on taking these vote games so incredibly seriously? As someone else has noted, it's just USENet, it ain't nohow important. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/17/90)
In article <9695@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: | Wouldn't it be better if some backbone site set up an automatic vote | receiver/counter/confirmer? In a word, no. I have taken a few votes for various things, and I have always seen votes which were clear to a human but not to casual software. Since you offered to write the software quickly I assume that you are not talking about a major AI project, which might take a year or so. As long as the voters are reported and the voters check their votes, there is a minimal chance of the moderator influencing the vote. I can't see enough evil in the counts (now that we have the 2/3 rule) to justify yet another change in the way we do things. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) (01/17/90)
In article <9695@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <130174@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) >writes: >>>>*** Remember to VOTE YES to talk.religion.pagan (moderated). *** >>>>*** Send your vote To: olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu *** > >In article <9659@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >>>In a message posted on 12 January 1990, after the conclusion of the voting >>>period. Obviously this is an individual deeply concerned about the ethics >>>of newsgroup creation and control. > >In article <130242@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) >writes: >> Actually Tim, I don't give a poop. >> I'll keep my .sig file as it is though until I see the vote. Why are >>you so hostile to letting other people have something they want? Are you >>so much into controlling other people's lives, wants and desires? > >So, Turnbow not only admits that he consciously solicited votes for the >group after the end of the voting period, he says that he will continue >to do so, and that he doesn't give a shit for ethics. The only rationale >cited is that he wants the new group. And Turnbow is not collecting the votes. I have refrained from any sort of campaigning (and in fact had nothing to do with his decision to plug the newsgroup in his .signature -- not that I really expect you to believe that) throughout the creation process. Furthermore, if the voting is closed, his .signature has no affect. >What is most interesting about this message is that Turnbow apparently >knew that the vote collector will continue to accept votes after the >end of the voting period, yet he did not state the collector's excuse >for doing so. I will let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. He did not, for the same reason that no one else did -- I was essentially out of contact with the net for the period that the votes were bouncing -- and for the same reason. >Something is very fishy here, and yes, I do intend the pun to refer to >sci.aquaria. If anyone sent votes to the collector between 2 Jan and >10 Jan, please post to the net or send mail to me to that effect, and >please mention whether you did or did not receive a confirmation. In >addition, the collector will please post a vote tally ASAP, with names >of the voters; anyone whose vote was not counted or was counted >incorrectly should post to news.groups or send mail to me. Well this at least is an improvement. Instead of insisting that the system downtime is a fraud, he is at now merely insinuating it. It is simple enough to check the facts. There were at least two postings of bounced votes (one in news.groups and one in talk.religion.newage), one of which mentioned the fact that "olorin" was an unknown user. Furthermore, a simple mail message to the site administrators would confirm the fact that the systems were in fact down. But this does make the third time (by my count) that you have attacked talk.religion.pagan and me personally without checking the facts first. >This mess and sci.aquaria show a basic flaw in the newsgroup creation >process. The votes are taken by people who have a vested interest in >the outcome of the vote, and who can very easily commit fraud or >otherwise dissemble concerning the results. I am getting a bit upset at your continued references to the fights over sci.aquaria. I have continually attempted to avoid the sorts of problems that cropped up during that vote (for example, there was a referendum on the newsgroup name). I also resent the implication that I have been in any way dishonest during this vote. While I do admit to wanting to see talk.religion.pagan pass, it is not an issue of such overwhelming importance to me that I would lie, cheat, or in any way act dishonestly to see it do so. --Dave --- Dave Weinstein GEnie: OLORIN olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Disclaimer: My employer has nothing to do with my opinions.
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (01/17/90)
In article <9695@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >> I'll keep my .sig file as it is though until I see the vote. Why are >>you so hostile to letting other people have something they want? Are you >>so much into controlling other people's lives, wants and desires? > >So, Turnbow not only admits that he consciously solicited votes for the >group after the end of the voting period, he says that he will continue >to do so, and that he doesn't give a shit for ethics. The only rationale >cited is that he wants the new group. ---------- Tim, why haven't you answered my question? What is your problem? You are so obviously jumping up and down and having a temper tantrum it is ridiculous. Since I am not conducting the vote, nor do I even know the vote collector personally, I wasn't keeping track of when things should or should not be ended. I always go by the maxim: the show ain't over till the fat lady sings. You got a problem with that? >What is most interesting about this message is that Turnbow apparently >knew that the vote collector will continue to accept votes after the >end of the voting period, yet he did not state the collector's excuse >for doing so. I will let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. How did you come to the conclusion that I knew? Was the basis for your assumption that I didn't state the collector's excuse for extending the voting period? Your arguments are not logical and are full of non sequiturs. Get off it! -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will. *** Remember to VOTE YES to talk.religion.pagan (moderated). *** *** Send your vote To: olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ***
morgan@csc32.dec.com (Mike Morgan/Colorado Springs) (01/17/90)
> --- An it harm none, do what you will. >*** Remember to VOTE YES to talk.religion.pagan (moderated). *** >*** Send your vote To: olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu *** I'll vote (a second time since a month ago) yes on the pagan newsgroups. BTW, just ignore Tim, he sometimes says some very poignant things. Mostly he just likes to agrue endlessly over minor trivialities. Don't fall into his well oiled traps. *** As always I speak for myself. ***
gt1020a@prism.gatech.EDU (Ken Yousten) (01/17/90)
In article <9695@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > If anyone sent votes to the collector between 2 Jan and >10 Jan, please post to the net or send mail to me to that effect, and >please mention whether you did or did not receive a confirmation. In >addition, the collector will please post a vote tally ASAP, with names >of the voters; anyone whose vote was not counted or was counted >incorrectly should post to news.groups or send mail to me. Then he proceeds to write... > The votes are taken by people who have a vested interest in >the outcome of the vote, and who can very easily commit fraud or >otherwise dissemble concerning the results. Yeah. Right. o Ken Yousten oo 90% of everything is crap o o arpa: gt1020a@prism.gatech.edu oo --Sturgeon's Law o o uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1020a