Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ctrsol!cica!iuvax!rutgers!att!cbnews!wbt From: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Sci.ad.nauseum.aquaria redux Message-ID: <10691@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 27 Oct 89 15:14:04 GMT References: <35951@apple.Apple.COM> Reply-To: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 123 In article <35951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Rule breaking: > >You posted to news.groups, not news.announce.newgroups. It was later >transferred, but that's against protocol. You also neglected to include >rec.pets, even though there was a significant overlap of interest there >because of the naming. What ? What has the name sci.aquaria have to do with rec.pets ? Further, how can you expect all "significant" groups to be included in the crosspost ? Will a call for votes for talk.styrofoam be invalidated if the vote taker forgets to crosspost to, say, comp.misc, where they sometimes complain about poorly-packaged computer equipment ? Clearly, this can't be considered a violation. >>3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote, >> provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased instructions for >> casting a vote as the original, and provided that it is really a repeat >> of the call for votes on the SAME proposal (see #5 below). > >You have been politicking this vote mercilessly since the announcement, >which is in violation of this rule. This is meaningless. I don't recall the guidelines stating that discussion must stop when voting starts; certainly, this is not the case for a large number of groups. The above quote only specifies that the *calls for votes* themselves should be limited. >One can argue that he's simply continuing to argue his >position in the debate over the group and the name, but that simply returns >to the point that the name was never made a consensus, and therefore the >vote call was incorrect there. If you intend to hold this as a requirement, no controversial group can ever be created. A dozen people can continually attack the group during the vote, and if the vote-taker responds, poof. It's a little like penalizing the visiting team for excessive crowd noise. >My position on this, then, is simple. I wish to see the sci.aquaria vote >declared invalid for rule infractions. It's obvious that this whole thing >is a politicking sham, that the rules are being used when convenient and >ignored when not, and that the spirit of the rules are being demolished at >the same time the letter of the rules is being ignored. Bah. Why do you care if the vote is invalidated or not ? Consider the possibilities: 1) the vote fails. If you declare it invalid, Richard would theoretically be free to immediately call for another vote, rather than having to wait 6 months. 2) the vote passes. Why do you care if other people consider the vote valid or not ? You still have the option to not carry the group on *you* machine. >I've asked Greg to invalidate the vote for these reasons. Whether he does >or not I don't know. My suggestion is the following: > >o the current sci.aquaria vote is thrown out completely. >o a vote to create a naming consensus is run for a period of ten days by > a party to be appointed by Greg and to exclude anyone screaming loudly on > either side (specifically myself and Richard -- and anyone else Greg > feels is too deeply involved). >o Once that is done, a normal, 21 day vote on the group is run for the > consensus group, again by an appointed party. Again, bah. Who died and left Greg in charge ? From what I've seen, he's no more qualified than you or Richard to remain impartial in this matter. If you want an impartial arbitrator, I suggest grep'ing a random Portal user. Further, I object because your proposal would stretch this thing out for another month or more. Finally, a vote cannot create a naming *consensus*; it can only determine majority view. Those who want a different name than that winning the vote will still press for it. And what if sci.aquaria wins that vote ? >My sources, by the way, currently show that the voting is running about 270 >Yes to 200 No (or some such -- it's about 70 positive; not currently enough >to succeed -- and with an exceptionally large NO contingent). You've just violated guidelines, which state that vote tallies are verboten. I hereby declare your opinion in this matter invalid. You'll have to form a new consensus opinion, and then discuss it for 14 days, before you may post again on this topic. >I've also >been told that Richard is pushing to get yes votes -- so I hereby wish to >request that everyone who thinks this situation is out of control but >hasn't voted yet to please send in a "no" vote, >Normally I wouldn't do this, but I feel it's only fair >considering the kind of flogging for votes Richard's been doing. It had previously been argued that, just because some sci groups, like sci.skeptic, didn't deserve to be there was no reason to allow sci.aquaria there, as well; a.k.a. "two wrongs don't make a right." Now Chuq has refuted that old adage with this action... I do agree that this situation is wonderfully out of control; a perfect example of anarchy in action. For that reason, and prompted by your plea for no votes, I now intend to doff my neutrality and send Richard my Yes vote... just to see what happens if the vote passes. Will Usenet as we know it end ? Will the net.gods vanish in a puff of logic ? Tune in next week, same net-time, same net-channel ! >I've heard enough rumors of questionable votes that I feel it has to be >checked out. Note that I am *not* accusing Richard of vote fraud -- just >that there are enough rumors that I want to make sure. Where do you get your information, Chuq ? I've cracked Richard's password, and even *I* don't hear all the rumors you're getting. 8-) >And I'm making sure >that Richard has enough notice of this that he can be sure that no vote >fraud of any kind occurs. I'm sure that Richard is capable of ensuring that you will find no vote fraud. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker wbt@cbnews.att.com Free the Lagrange 5 !