Subject:
|
Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:03:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
517 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > 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
>
> 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. [...]
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 enjoy the lugnet groups
more if Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges were revoked from as many
newsgroups as possible...the more the better."
* In #3, you're saying, "Yes, I would personally enjoy the lugnet groups
more if Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges were revoked from all
lugnet.* groups, but _only_ if his posting privileges were revoked from
_all_ the lugnet.* groups; if he still has posting privileges even to a
single group, I won't personally enjoy the lugnet groups more."
Most people teetering between #2 and #3 would probably go with #2, figuring
that partial exclusion is better than no exclusion. But someone who wants
it to be all-or-nothing would go with #3.
I can understand the all-or-nothing philosophy since a partial restriction
potentially has the effect of quieting the complaints down so low that a
complete restriction later may never be possible.
For this reason, and to agree with Larry once more, "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."[1]
In other words, a clearer wording might have been:
1. Would you personally enjoy the lugnet groups more if Jonathan
Wilson's posting privileges were revoked from (answer each
separately):
1a. lugnet.* (as many as possible)
1b. lugnet.cad.* (as many as possible)
1c. as many as possible of a specific list of other groups
(please list)
Note: YES for 1a implies YES for 1b and 1c, even if you write NO
for 1b and/or 1c or leave either blank.
Or, alternatively:
1. Would you personally enjoy the lugnet groups more if Jonathan
Wilson's posting privileges were revoked from all lugnet.* groups?
2. If you answered NO to #1, then would you personally enjoy the lugnet
groups more if Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges were revoked
from specific groups (instead of all the groups)?
If so, which groups? You can use a star (*) to indicate a
whole hierarchy, for example lugnet.cad.* or lugnet.cad.dat.*
It's my fault, BTW, that the wording is ambiguous. Looking back at some
private (Adam he asked me to review his post before posting it), Adam
originally had clearly an either-or choice (all or other), but when I
suggested three choices (all or cad or other), it got into ambiguous
territory because of the strong overlap. My bad.
BTW, the suggestion of separating "would you personally be happier if XYZ
happened" from "should XYZ happen" was mine too, but the theory there was to
ask the "would you personally..." question first, then publish the results,
then ask the "should..." question after the results of the first question
were tallied. (People sometimes tend toward "status quo tameness" on
"should"-style questions when they don't know how other people feel.)
One interesting unforseen artifact of presenting "would you personally enjoy
the groups more if..." against "should..." is that someone could actually
want to (but not be able to) answer "no" to "would you personally enjoy the
groups more if..." but "yes" to the "should" part. For example, Greg
Majewski said, "No, you're missing out! I occasionally read his posts for a
quick laugh or two..."[2], in which case it's conceivable that Greg may not
in fact -enjoy- the groups more if JW's posting privileges were revoked,
even though he may still feel that JW's privilegs -should- be revoked.
In other words, the "should XYZ happen" question should not we worded such
that it can only be answered if the "would you personally enjoy the groups
more if..." part is answered with "yes." The "should" question should be
answerable regardless of the first question. (Hope that make sense!)
--Todd
[1] http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2672
[2] http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=2520
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
