Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rice!brazos.rice.edu!bbc From: bbc@nysa.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES: *.AQUARIA Message-ID: Date: 26 Nov 89 08:23:22 GMT References: <4598@sugar.hackercorp.com> Sender: news@rice.edu Reply-To: Benjamin Chase Followup-To: news.groups Organization: CPRC, Rice University Lines: 83 In-reply-to: peter@sugar.lonestar.org's message of 22 Nov 89 15:46:35 GMT Yeah, I know, I signed off of news.groups. But then Peter da SIlva, peter@sugar.lonestar.org, had to screw things up: >This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will >be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system: Peter, they're still debating the merits of STV in news.groups! It's not ready for use on a real issue. Specifically, how will you handle ties for last place in a given round? (I will agree that the absence of a "no" choice on the ballot is irrelevent for this vote, given your definition of its purpose, which is to rename an existing group.) Now, wait a minute. They're still discussing the events involved in changing the name of a group. And the time scale of these events. So, you're asking for a vote, using a voting procedure that's still being defined, to perform an action, which is also still being defined? Beautiful. > I will note right now that I am personally opposed to the name >sci.aquaria, (I feel it is inappropriate for you to announce your personal opposition in your call for votes.) >because I see it as an attempt to defraud certain groups of >people who wish to avoid the use of their facilities for recreational >purposes. There are other ways to correct these perceived problems. One would be to call for discussion on the creation of "rec.aquaria". No, not a sci.aquaria renamed, or a replacement, but a companion group. The recreational postings can go in rec.aquaria, and the scientific postings can go in sci.aquaria. And perhaps Richard would never be called on to fulfill his offer to moderate world-wide postings to sci.aquaria, if there was a more appropriate forum for guppy sagas? When I stopped reading news.groups, I asked that some reasonable, unbiased person undertake the creation of such a companion group. Of course, nothing seems to have happened. Greg Woods was right, the impartial people are too apathetic, or are perhaps (my theory, and autobiography) disgusted by the childish antics recently associated with group creation. And now I suppose it's inappropriate for me to undertake this myself, since your avante-garde call for votes hasn't been properly shouted down yet. I would have use for both of these groups, and have already posted many articles to alt.aquaria (yes, I made alt.aquaria's Bandwidth-Waster Hall-o-Fame) which were appropriate to each of these groups. I have posted scientific articles to alt.aquaria, and have gotten absolutely no response, in spite of an estimated readership of 6000. And I have refrained from posting some articles to alt.aquaria, because I wished that the conversation stay on a more professional level, and felt that a particular post would be too recreational. >There are other people who are opposed to >the name rec.aquaria because they believe it will attract a lower class of >posters, since people are likely to give more thought to postings if >they're in a scientific forum. Yes, I am one of those people. During the debate on sci.aquaria creation, I recall one wan poster admitting that he'd feel intimidated posting to a sci group. I think his reaction is fine, and commendable; it might even improve the quality of the net. If it only occurs in sci groups, well, too bad. If it would only occur more often everywhere, that would be great. >If no candidate acheives the required 100 vote margin, the existing group >alt.aquaria will remain. I don't see how this vote should directly affect alt.aquaria at all. If traffic on alt.aquaria whithers, then it should go away, someday. If it doesn't, it should stay. It is the alt way. Thus spake alt. >The sugar-uunet link appears to be down at the moment. My, this bodes well for the reliability of the data you are collecting. Oh, and do you expect us to be bound by your "analysis" of the "data"? Oh, and one more thing. I voted for "sci" and for "aquaria". You seem to be collecting data on that as well. -- Ben Chase , Rice University, Houston, Texas ... thou art fishified!