Subject:
|
Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:59:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
340 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, "Adam Howard" <abhoward10@hotmail.com> writes:
> > [...]
> > Extreme measures:
> > 1. Would you personally enjoy the lugnet groups more if Jonathan Wilson's
> > posting privileges were revoked from:
> > a. All lugnet.* groups
> > b. Just lugnet.cad.* groups
> > c. Other (please list)
>
> These are three separate questions, right? Not mutually exclusive
> alternatives?
>
> Until reading TimC's message,
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2669
>
> I had thought the votes were going to look like this (for example):
>
>
> a. All lugnet.* groups ==> No
> b. Just lugnet.cad.* groups ==> Yes
> c. Other (please list) ==> Yes: .starwars
>
>
> a. All lugnet.* groups ==> Yes
> b. Just lugnet.cad.* groups ==> Yes
> c. Other (please list) ==> Yes: .starwars, .general
>
>
> a. All lugnet.* groups ==> No
> b. Just lugnet.cad.* groups ==> No
> c. Other (please list) ==> No
>
>
> a. All lugnet.* groups ==> No
> b. Just lugnet.cad.* groups ==> No
> c. Other (please list) ==> Yes: .cad.dev.*, .cad.dat.parts.*
>
>
> a. All lugnet.* groups ==> Yes
> b. Just lugnet.cad.* groups ==> No
> c. Other (please list) ==> No
>
>
> (In the last example, this would be a vote by someone who wanted it to be
> all or nothing.)
>
> I see no simple and objective way to interpret the results unless each of
> (a), (b), and (c) are separate sub-questions each with its own answer.[1]
>
> Confused,
> --Todd
>
> [1] Except in the special case where (a) alone comes out 2/3 or higher.
I voted as Todd indicated, where (a), (b) and (c) are each separate points.
Perhaps the organization of questions could have been better.
Just given either (a) or (b) above, I saw that just by answering yes on (b)
would mean redundancy if my answer to (a) were yes, as in Todd's second ballot
example, because each point, (b) and (c), is a subset of (a), even
collectively, after all is said and done. To me, Todd's examples #2 and #5
achieve the same result. Assuming there is to be no redundancy, and going by
the letter of the law I took #1 as three questions under one subject.
But it's good that this is being asked anyway cuz I could be wrong.
-Tom McD.
when replying, a dried spamcake brick makes a good whetstone.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
| (...) Ahh, but #2 and #5 do achieve different results! In #2, the hope is that if (a) doesn't pass, then perhaps (b) or (c) still might. In #3, if (a) doesn't pass, then that's it...all or nothing. * In #2, you're saying, "Yes, I would personally (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
