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 / 2562
2561  |  2563
Subject: 
Re: i admit i was wrong
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:13:02 GMT
Viewed: 
198 times
  
In lugnet.cad.dev, Todd Lehman writes:
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> writes:

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.

That doesn't follow.  The choices aren't mutually exclusive, are they?  I
thought these were separate, independently voted-upon percentages.  If so,
then they can't be combined mathematically as described above.  Consider:

If you had

  95% vote for removal from lugnet.*
  98% vote for removal from lugnet.cad.*
  2% vote not to remove JW's privileges at all

would you say that pushed the votes for lugnet.cad.* to 193%?

With sets and subsets, the only way they could be considered combinable is
via the 'maximum' function:

  F(x,y) = x if x >= y
         = y if x <= y

So if you had

  55% vote for removal from lugnet.*
  60% vote for removal from lugnet.cad.*

then the effect of the upper portion on the lower portion is zero.  If you
had

  60% vote for removal from lugnet.*
  55% vote for removal from lugnet.cad.*

then the effect of the upper portion on the lower portion is to raise it an
additional 5% to 60% by proper subset inclusion.

--Todd


I think Tim was envisioning a single multiple-choice vote, i.e. pick a) do
nothing, b) remove from lugnet.cad*, c) remove from lugnet.*.  In that case,
those votes for "c" could also be considered votes for "b".  If 60% say remove
from lugnet.*, and 10% say remove from lugnet.cad.*, then you have a 70% super-
majority for removing from lugnet.cad.*.

-John Van



Message has 1 Reply:
  cascading vote choices (was: Re: i admit i was wrong)
 
(...) I don't think that follows. It certainly wasn't specified in the CFV that the votes would be interpreted in a cascading way. Note that (a) says "All lugnet.* groups," it doesn't say, "As many lugnet.* groups as possible," and it doesn't say (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

6 Messages in This Thread:


Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

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