Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!hassell From: hassell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin Subject: Re: Votes with many NO votes (Re: OFFICIAL Newsgroup Creation/Deletion Guidelines) Summary: *** Discussion should be --improved--, not decided upon. *** Message-ID: <7701@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Date: 26 Mar 89 05:02:49 GMT References: <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> <11326@s.ms.uky.edu> <3549@ficc.uu.net> <27812@apple.Apple.COM> Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU Reply-To: hassell@solitude.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) Organization: (Let's see, I'm positive .. I've got ... ) Lines: 120 Xref: utzoo news.groups:8432 news.admin:5268 In article <27812@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: #>How about using the rule of 100: any vote with over 100 NO votes, regardless #>of the number of YES votes, obviously has a lot of opposition and should not #>be created. #No, because it's too easy to build up power blocks to beat any arbitrary #number. The idea is not to see if someone can build up a special interest #group of a given size, but whether there is enough interest to warrant the #group (and not enough anti-interest to consider it a bad idea). Power blocks or none, there is a problem with having truly flamey setups possible. There can be two types of opposed groups at times, flame-sinks , and flame-sources . Other types such as association-hate producers (if X didn't want Y on the net .. just because) should not carry weight, that is true. There aren't really that many votes against unpopular new groups so that shouldn't be an issue. No's should still be allowed, ESPECIALLY if there is no mid-vote reporting . I'm not exactly certain about No-fests. I would rather apply the rules I made up, below. Also on the arbitrary "100": There has been a continuous amount of discussion about the "100" number. That is truly a good question to apply things to. Possibly there should be a redetermination of certain "levels" of specialization of groups. Since sites already screen some that don't have broad support, this might already be enforced, though. I say that the "arbitrary number" should be as low as is necessary to allow the maximum level of specialization the net tolerates at any time. Allowing ANY group onto the net should occur only if those most robust sites can take it. Their capacity has expanded significantly and does as Usenet gets bigger so the number "100" might still be adequate to give the best means of communication. It might need changing from time to time, but don't ask me how #In another (long) message, I proposed an alternative message. For those that #don't want to wade through that one, I'll summarize: #o Any vote that has fewer than 150 valid votes fails for lack of interest. The number might be arguable, but it still seems valid to cull some mailing-list fodder away. #o A vote requires 67% of all valid votes for the creation or deletion of # a group (i.e., a two-thirds majority must agree to create the group or a # 2/3 majority must agree to delete it. In either case, the bias is towards # the standard quo). That is the right idea for retention of a group, but possibly the wrong application of a "fix", w/regard to rmgrouping. More later. #o If the number of 'spoiled' or provably missing votes is > 1% of the total # voting *or* can be shown to change the final verdict, the vote must retaken # and administered by an agreed upon neutral third party. Definately. Good thing to note on this very unmonitored practice. [ good ideas about having percentages as determinants of success in voting ] Most do pass with low negative votes. That should work. #suggesting that group deletion take the same structure as creation -- except #that those *for* deletion have to show the 2/3 majority. [ good stuff deleted about making votes and voters responsible ] My suggestion is that the above "reasons" for deletion ought to be taken into account. Groups should ** not ** be deleted because of flame-throwing. The flame-throwing should be edited out. I believe that the best application is to remove groups ONLY for inactivity. If a group has low volume it should DEFINATELY ALSO ** have a group to retreat to **. That is in the ** essential ** purpose of Usenet and it is just the reverse of most creations of groups. This would be the most efficient manner of handling rising and falling interest in a subject. Rmgrouping is not the same as housecleaning!!! The other type of deletion-reason is that of FLAMES. Constant and unbridled, personal and useless, Flames are the joy of some and the bane of others. I believe that what should be done is basically this: - General calls of content-change : a group is running a flame-fest started from within the subject's content and continued with more and more tangential argument from the normal level of discussion. After this there could be - Call for Moderation: if appropriate in that the group's charter does NOT even inherently ALLOW those flames and they are irrelevant to normal discussion, as well as disruptive. - Call for Moderation Change: this is only appropriate if there is blatant disregard for Opposing viewpoints within the chartered subject or if the selectivity of the moderator stirs up irrelevant issues more than the prime ones. Non-existence of a group is not valid as an opposing viewpoint-goal. Changing of a group might be one. If these are inherently inadequate upon discussing their implementation then - Change of Charter: this is reserved for areas where the flames are relevant and allowed within the charter, and still conflict with the ideal purpose of the group wished by most. - Split of Charter: this is the last resort of a flaming group that has spread too far and continues. This basically produces a group BY ITSELF for -=*** BOTH ***=- sides of the argument to be exiled to. The initial group can also apply the above procedure to lock them out. This might actually produce some good and meaningful argument if it is tapped first-off. From here irresolvable differences might finally be agreed upon and issues cooled off a bit. Now, basically these should catch all problems. Charter-changes should result in less repeats and Moderation should squelch any fruitless problems. If the flame-groups become inactive enough to be dropped then any second bouts will be required to restart it or be quiet. I think that the previous methods of getting actions enacted are sufficient for this list of actions. #The idea is to stabilize on the way things are unless there's a good reason #to change it. Inertia, always inertia is used for this stuff. Oy vey, it makes sense. How 'bout them apples? Comments...FLAMES even? ### C>H> ###