To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 2511
2510  |  2512
Subject: 
Re: i admit i was wrong
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:35:31 GMT
Reply-To: 
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.nospamCOM
Viewed: 
2908 times
  
I support what you are trying to do in the voting but it may be more
straightforward to present a series of up/down propositions and
commentary that the broader ones will supercede the narrower ones if
passed.

Tim Courtney wrote:
> 
> At 04:36 PM 8/15/99 , Todd Lehman wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> About these voting options, the votes for a more severe restriction should
> carry over to a less severe restriction if that particular restriction
> recieves the 2/3 majority votes.  For example:
> 
> 25% vote for removal from lugnet.*
> 50% vote for removal from lugnet.cad.*
> 25% vote not to remove JW's privileges at all
> 
> Now this is an oversimplification of the case, but this is to prove a point
> and kill a headache on my part by making things a little mroe realistic :)
> 
> The votes for lugnet.* would be counted as votes for lugnet.cad.* since
> cad.* is included under lugnet.* and lugnet.cad.* received more
> votes.  This would push the votes for lugnet.cad.* to 75%, thus exceeding
> the 2/3 majority requirement.
> 
> -Tim <><
> 
> http://www.zacktron.com
> http://www.ldraw.org
> AIM:   timcourtne
> ICQ:   23951114
> 
> Commonwealth Edison: What do you do with OUR power?
> 
> Get paid to surf the web!  Visit:
> http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=DGO655

--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com  http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.

NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: i admit i was wrong
 
(...) About these voting options, the votes for a more severe restriction should carry over to a less severe restriction if that particular restriction recieves the 2/3 majority votes. For example: 25% vote for removal from lugnet.* 50% vote for (...) (27 years ago, 16-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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR