Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: A proposal for a new voting scheme Message-ID: <6950@ficc.uu.net> Date: 13 Nov 89 19:27:36 GMT References: <6931@ficc.uu.net> <1989Nov12.162221.10189@NCoast.ORG> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 27 ?? An alternative suggestion is that if there are more YES than NO votes by ?? whatever margin is decided upon, the name with the most YES votes will be ?? created (or used, if it is an existing group). Me: This is a reasonable alternative, but to take the sci.aquaria farce as an Me: example, it's not really meaningful to combine votes for sci.aquaria and for Me: rec.aquaria as mutual "yes" votes. A mutual hate society, maybe. > Richard Sexton and Oleg Kiselev aside, most people voted FOR sci.aquaria on > the merits of the "aquaria", not the "sci". I noticed. > I submit that in fact, the votes > could be combined to reflect interest in a newsgroup on the subject under > *any* name -- even in the case of *.aquaria. In this case they would have voted for *both* groups. Combining all the votes for all the groups would then count these folks *twice*. Can you say "let's stuff the ballot box by putting lots of names in?". Sure you can. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu