| |
In lugnet.admin.general, "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> writes:
> [...]
> > TimC and AdamH are putting together a CFV motion. There may be several
> > semi-overlapping and/or independent options to consider:
> >
> > 1) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev
> > 2) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
> > 3) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev.dat.parts.*
> > 4) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev.dat.*
> > 5) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.*
> > 5) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.*
> > 6) fill-in-the-blank
> >
> > As I understand it, some mix of the above would be the outcome if a
> > delivered ultimatum was not met within some proscribed time period.
>
> Okay. I had received no official indication that point #5 was being discussed.
Whoops! There are two #5's up there, eh? :o)
By the second #5, I really meant the lugnet.starwars group in particular,
although other people may have discovered other areas of related concern,
disgust, or disappointment. For instance, there's quite a bit of parts
rabble here:
http://www.lugnet.com/starwars/?q=%2Bjonathan+%2Bwilson
(It's amazing how many times you have to click "Next Page >>" to get through
to the end.) Again, I don't consider it up to me alone to decide whether
this is helpful or hurtful, but I personally don't see it as helpful on the
whole.
> > If the community held a vote, and reached a consensus on what to do (via at
> > least a 2/3 majority), I would honor the community's decision to remove JW's
> > posting privileges (to whatever groups were decided upon), if it came down
> > to that. The vote itself (at the discretion of the community) could of
> > course be further restricted to, say, a 3/4 or 4/5 majority (or higher),
> > thus making expulsion a bit more difficult.
>
> I know you'd honor that. And I respect you for that as benevolent dictator of
> Lugnetland. IMO 2/3 isn't quite enough and could still likely cause dissention
> or splintering of a group, while 3/4 is definitely substantial, and achieving
> 4/5 might require some lobbying though not unjustifiably so. To be nitpicky,
> how about 5/7? Such a percentage, 71.428571% (decimal repeats), is technically
> achievable with 4 four people in a group but still leaves a bit more room
> where larger groups are concerned.
To be perfectly candid, I'm still a tiny bit nervous about 2/3 (66.67%). I
would have no worries, however, about 4/5 (80%).
> Has the golden ratio been established yet? This would more than likely set a
> precedent for how future ostracising is determined.
Hehheh. Sure, heck, why not 8/13 or 34/55? ;-)
But seriously: Cool and fun the golden ratio may be, but only 61.8% it is.
(Er, 1/phi is 61.8%, that is; phi itself is 1.618... Anyway.)
61.8% is more than 1/2, obviously, and more 3/5, but it's less than 2/3.
Isn't that a bit too small?
--Todd
[followups to lugnet.admin.general]
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) A common priviledge here on lugnet is being able to post to any group, which would be revoked if the vote is against him. Exclusion from social acceptance could be achieved by no one answering his posts even with an "I don't know/don't (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
146 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
