Xref: utzoo news.admin:7352 news.groups:13699 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: These new voting schemes Message-ID: <6702@ficc.uu.net> Date: 27 Oct 89 16:48:46 GMT References: <4771@ncar.ucar.edu> <15249.253f3716@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <37123@looking.on.ca> <4806@ncar.ucar.edu> <1989Oct25.051238.4241@alembic.acs.com> <903@ecijmm.UUCP> <1989Oct26.233155.13966@alembic.acs.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 15 > The 100-NO-vote rule provides a mechanism for censorship on a net-wide > basis. That wasn't what Peter Da Silva intended when he suggested it, > I'm sure, but it could be used that way. It's a bad idea. Censorship? I think it's been hashed out often enough that not having a newsgroup does not constitute censorship. In any case, the 100 YES vote rule provides a mechanism for fraud on a net-wide basis. Percentage votes don't address the problem, they just up the ante a little. The only mechanisms for opposing this fraud that would have worked on recent votes are multi-way voting systems or the 100 no-vote rule. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)