Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!oleg From: oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Sci.ad.nauseum.aquaria redux Message-ID: <21596@gryphon.COM> Date: 28 Oct 89 23:30:53 GMT References: <35951@apple.Apple.COM> <4848@ncar.ucar.edu> Reply-To: oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) Organization: HASA Lines: 106 In article <4848@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > True. When I wrote the guidelines I put the name agreement requirement >in SPECIFICALLY to avoid ridiculous situations such as we now have with >the aquaria vote where we are clearly voting on the name instead of the group. GUIDELINES, Greg. Not laws, GUIDELINES. The "ridiculous" situation has been created by a few vociferous zealots like you, who have taken upon themselves the burden of looking out for our good, because obviously we are not capable of taking care of ourselves and making rational decisions. I am afraid to sound Libertarian, but what right do YOU have to enforce your biases on very large groups of people who have the education and the intellect to make a group decision of their own?! The fate of SCI.AQUARIA should be decided by a vote. So far over 700 people have cast their votes (last number qouted to me by Sexton). I suspect that these 700 people's opinions are far more important than your prejudices or your threats to throw the weight of your authority with the less sophisticated and/or irrationally loyal to you system administrators. > Yes, hardly "unbiased instructions for casting a vote" which is the only >thing allowed by the guidelines to be posted after the call for votes. There were such instructions posted. Very simple ones. YES or NO vote on SCI.AQUARIA, editorial comments optional. I am somehow not surprised that you do not remember them. >>It's obvious that this whole thing is a politicking sham And disclosure of (bogus) voting statistics is not? And active attempts to subvert the vote by running interfering votes, like Bryce's, are not? And you, Greg, already threatening to disrupt the group's distribution -- not a clear case of politicking of the most despicable sort?! > Despite what some people think, I have never been a fan of rigid enforcement >of the letter of the guidelines. However... However your "unbiased objectivity" crumbles into dust when a group proposal you have a visceral objections to comes along and calls for a "name czar" are issued forth along with blatant threats. Ever wonder why ALT hierarchy had been created? To avoid little petty fascists like you, Greg. To allow the individuals who are most interested in existance of a group to create it. Yes, there are "rmgroup" wars breaking out on ALT now and then, but how is that different from your threats, Greg? >a situation that is clearly detrimental to the entire net, "You know a discussion has been going ot too long when the imminent death of the entire NET is forecast" >As a system administrator, I do not >feel like I have to honor this vote even if it passes. It's a joke. So is your alleged objectivity. > I'd like to, but I really don't have the power to single-handedly >invalidate a vote. Oh, but don't you wish you did! You do not feel, obviously, that if a few hundred people vote and there are 100 more people who want the group than who don't -- then the group should be created. It should be created only if YOU agree with it. How unbiased. You and your ilk have destroyed net.flame in the renaming and then refused to allow it to come back in the new name scheme. ALT hierarchy was used to provide a place for it. The same has happened with the drugs group. Remember the blatant demonstration of the "backbone cabal" when the sex group, voted on and passed, was not created? ALT.sex was created. >The best I can do is ask the other site admins >on the net not to honor it if it should pass. That's a SCI group, mind you. Not an ALT or REC or TALK. >I'm not sure what to do about this now. Personally, I think Richard has >blown it and that the only reasonable thing to do is leave the group in >alt where it is doing just fine, and then maybe after this whole thing >blows over someone can try running a vote for rec.aquaria or some other >reasonable name which will probably be completely uncontroversial and >pass easily. I remember some time ago Richard called for rec.aquaria. That was before alt.aquaria was created. The vote failed. There wasn't enough interest. Richard created alt.aquaria -- and it succeeded spectacularly. Notice that your stupid guidelines quashed the original group proposal. Alt.aquaria does well without any help from you or Chuq. It succeeded despite the fact that there was little or no interest in it early on. Yet now, when sci.aquara is proposed, the interest in the group seems beyond any that I have seen in the voting for a long, long time. I will tell you what you can do about this now. Send your vote, if you yet had not, sit back and wait for the vote to run its course. If the group proposal passes, the group will be created and you will shut up and go away. If you really want to, you can issue a call for votes on [whatever] and see what that will get you. If the group vote fails, you can cackle gleefully and mutter "I told you so! I told you so!". And *I* will call for rec.aquaria and I will guarrantee you that it will pass. -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg