Subject:
|
Re: cascading vote choices (was: Re: i admit i was wrong)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Aug 1999 23:57:22 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com
|
Viewed:
|
227 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> 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.
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 selection. Just by the sheer number of choices I don't
see how the self-imposed majority can be reached. Then again, I'm not
sure I care if there's a majority.
I don't want my vote to count 10 times anyone else's, but I certainly
think the LCAD stalwarts' votes ought to be considered more important
than most other peoples'.
--
The pieces you want and nothing else - easy online bidding!
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Sure, you could pay someone to run your LEGO auction.
Or, you could run it yourself for free:
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/ (Still in beta)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
