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 / 2604
2603  |  2605
Subject: 
Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:59:32 GMT
Viewed: 
201 times
  
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:03:19 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:

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!)

OK, then why was voting the "should XYZ happen" conditional upon the
response to the "personally be happier if XYZ"?

Steve



Message is in Reply To:
  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)

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
    

Custom Search

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