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 / 2568
2567  |  2569
Subject: 
cascading vote choices (was: Re: i admit i was wrong)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Tue, 17 Aug 1999 23:09:24 GMT
Viewed: 
225 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, "John VanZwieten" <john_vanzwieten@msn.com> writes:

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".

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 that a vote for (a) implies a vote for (b) as well.

What do you do about someone who expected they were casting a vote in favor
of all or nothing?  (That is, only a complete ban and not a partial ban.)

The only way that (a) can cascade into (b) without subjective interpretation
is if (a) comes out to be 2/3 or greater and renders (b) moot, right?


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.*.

That's one possible interpretation.

Another interpretation -- the literalist interpretation, which is how I
would definitely interpret it -- is that 60% want either complete removal or
no removal at all.  That was the question as literally written.

As Larry pointed out,

   http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2672

it would be "more straightforward to present a series of up/down
propositions and commentary that the broader ones will supercede the
narrower ones if passed."

At this point, if people are considering a and b to be mutually exclusive,
I just hope it turns out either that a>2/3 or that a+b<2/3.

--Todd



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: cascading vote choices (was: Re: i admit i was wrong)
 
(...) For what it's worth, I voted thinking that it I voted for complete removal of priveleges, I was, by definition, also voting for removal from .cad.*. Now I'm beginning to think it should have been a ban/not ban vote, not a multi-tiered (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: i admit i was wrong
 
(...) 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.*, (...) (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

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

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