Xref: utzoo news.admin:7857 news.groups:15268
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!purdue!bu-cs!xylogics!cloud9!banyan!gil
From: gil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Fixing the unbroken
Message-ID: <623@banyan.UUCP>
Date: 1 Dec 89 14:58:06 GMT
References: <7139@ficc.uu.net> <11832@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: gil@banyan.com
Organization: Banyan Systems, Inc.
Lines: 32

In article <11832@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes:
>In article <7139@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
>>All of the proposals for new voting schemes -- and they seem
>>to be getting hairier by the moment -- ignore one fact:
>>the status quo works pretty well.  An occasional abuse,
>>like con.aquaria, does happen, . . . . 

>Hear ! Hear !

[stuff removed]

>Let's consider the actual cost of the sci.aquaria debate:

[gory details removed]

>Was it worth it ?  What was gained ?  

 . . well it was a lot of fun anyway . .

I don't get your point Bill, should we change the "voting" guidelines
or not ?  First you agree with Jeff that the status quo works well
enough and then you tell us how badly it fucked up. All these new
voting mechanisms are supposed to _fix_ the above problem(s). Why not
give 'em a chance ?  Do you think we won't be able to change back to
the old mechanisms if the new ones don't work out ?

p.s. I am very, very sorry for ever voting against sci.aquaria. I had
     a long talk with Eris and she was extremely pissed at me. I don't
     know what I could have been thinking of, arguing for "order"
     in/on the net. I will now vote YES for anything.

Gilbert W. Pilz Jr.       gil@banyan.com


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com