Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CfD: Interest Group Surveys (was: STV new group proposal in 25 lines) Keywords: single transferrable votes STV newsgroup creation interest group Message-ID: Date: 15 Feb 90 13:11:24 GMT References: <1990Feb7.224449.8453@diku.dk> <13779@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <1AP1WZAxds13@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 11 In article lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: > I see no reason why one couldn't use STV to pick the name before a call > for votes to see if the group should be created. Because the people intent on such clumsy fraud as has happened in the past will equally ignore any pre-vote poll. My STV proposal, currently on the table, would be to hold these two votes in parallel. To give the person proposing a group with a controversial name some incentive to go ahead with the STV vote, I'm suggesting a partial relaxation of the 2/3 rule. As has been shown many times in the past, you can't expect people to behave rationally unless you give them some incentive to do so. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'