Subject:
|
CFV Clarifications and REVISIONS
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:17:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
331 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi everyone,
I've finally noticed the concern about this growing so I'd like to throw out
some clarifications:
(I chose Todd's message to reply to because he seemed to address most of the
concerns.)
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:37b9e64c.97122072@lugnet.com...
> 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.
No it doesn't state that in the CFV, but it is clearly stated (IMO).
Perhaps it's just my understanding that lugnet.* means Every single group on
LUGNET including all the lugnet.cad.* groups. I was under the impression
that everyone voting would understand that .* means everything under that
heading.
Therefore: If you vote YES to a and b and list something in c and vote
YES to that too, and you vote YES to 2, then you have cast 1 single
vote. That one single vote goes towards all lugnet.* groups (including cad
and any
other groups listed by other voters in c).
Lets say 100 people vote (and all voted YES to 2)
a = 50 vote YES
b = (50) + 20 = 70 vote YES 2/3-majority b passes
c = (50) + 30 = 80 vote YES 2/3-majority whichever individual c('s)
pass(es)
b and c don't have a superficial majority becaus 50 people did vote for the
groups listed in b and c when they voted YES for a. 70 people could have
voted for a and then a would have passed too.
> 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.)
If they vote YES to lugnet.*=ALL (a) and 2 YES, and it turns out that there
is only a 2/3-majority for either b or c, a partial ban, then what you are
saying is they would want to change their vote to NO for 1 and 2? Why on
earth would they want to do that? That would probably cause the partial ban
to fail because it would remove their vote from all the b and c categories.
> 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?
I disagree, please read on.
>
> > 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.
That is my interpretation. Note when the 60% are saying YES to lugnet.*
they are also saying YES to lugnet.cad.* and c. Also note that the 60% vote
for lugnet.* would not have been a 2/3-majority and would have failed to
pass, however, the 60% who voted for a + the 10% who voted only for b would
result in a 2/3-majority and b would have passed.
> 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.
I'm a fairly literal person. Was the question literally written that way?
So far it doesn't seem like any of the voters interpreted the question the
way you describe. Which makes me believe the question was literally written
for the other interpretation. (By definition 1 in my dictionary Literal
means "In accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the explicit or
primary meaning of a word or the words of a text." According to this
deffinition I would interpret lugnet.* as literally meaning every single
group in the LUGNET newsgroups. Literally can mean "really; actually".)
(Boy I'm literally being literal :) However, if people feel that they want
their vote to be an 'all or nothing' then please 'write it in'. This is one
thing I should have mentioned in the CFV- 'write in's'. Just because the
ballot has been set doesn't mean voters can't write in alternatives, like
the 'all or nothing' interpretation described above. But, keep in mind: if
everyone writes in something without voting on the standardized questions
then this vote will just turn into an opinion poll and none of the actions
will pass.
After reading Todd's post <http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=2569> I
think a clearer way of writing question #1 to fit with my interpretation
would have been:
Qote from Todd's above post:
" 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."
This is how I have been evaluating the votes, even though it is not stated
like this in the CFV. In other words if you voted YES to a and NO to b and
c, but you answered YES to 2 then I have been recording the vote as if you
voted YES to b and c (to me your NO answers to b and c were just opinions-
because you may not have been involved with those specific groups).
> 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."
That's unessessary. If the broader one does pass then all the narrower ones
will fall under that umbrella.
> 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
b and c are only exclusive from a in the sense that some voters don't want
all JW's privileges revoked. They only want his privileges revoked from
those groups they have chosen. Also, for those who answer YES to anything
in 1, but NO to 2, your votes DO NOT go towards those categories (in this
case you are just expressing an opinion, your answer to 2 decides whether
you want that opinion to count).
I hope this has clarified some of the issues about this vote. I tried to
make sure the questions were as clear as possible (and I did work on the
questions with other people before posting, but I take full responsibility
for the problems all this has caused). One thing you should also consider
is I couldn't write the vote with sentences like 'If you vote for such and
such then you might also vote for this too- or write these special
instructions in to cover your bases'. That would have made the vote
impartial. It would have been like I was leading people to vote one way or
the other. I also think a vote depends on how a person understands and
interprets the questions in a vote. Not everyone interprets or understands
a question the same way. That's just how our brains work. Even official
government vote writers have to deal with this issue. I honestly felt that
I made the questions as clear as possible, but I can see that they could
have been made clearer.
Another issue that I think needs to be clarified is that the vote is not 2
or 3. You could vote YES to both. To prevent 3 from passing by a
landslide, however, please indicate your conditions for a YES vote to 3 in
your answer to 3. Example: If 2 does not pass by a 2/3-majority then count
my vote for 3 as a YES vote, otherwise count it as a NO vote. I appologize
for not indicating something like this in the original CFV. I either wasn't
thinking (probably the case) or I was afraid that it would be interpreted as
though I were leading people in their vote. However, after reading several
voters votes who have noticed this and sent me votes with a similar
condition mentioned in their answer for 3, I have decided it is not leading.
Instead it is making sure voters know their options. I don't want to
misslead those who vote YES in 2 and cause a vote that results in no action
when they would prefer some action rather than none (unless that is the way
everyone votes). Several people have already submitted votes where they
voted YES to 2 and NO to 3. At first this confused me, but then I
understood what was wrong. I hope this fixes the problem.
I would also like to clarify the #3 vote. Several people have writen in
that they would like this option, but only if there were more leniency in
the 'viloation clause'. In other words they have been voting NO to a
question that they would otherwise be voting YES to. I just want to let
everyone know that the violation clause is flexible. I should have written
that in the CFV, but I didn't think that would be a problem issue. Below is
an alternative for question #3.
Here is an alternative to #3. If people would like to use this instead just
cut and paste it into an email to me at abhoward10@hotmail.com.
[CUT]
Alternative:
3. Should Jonathan be placed on probation for a period of 6 months as an
alternative to revoking posting privileges?
If you answer YES to question 3, then please vote on the Violation of
Probation definition.
Violation of Probation is defined as:
(please choose one of the following or write one in for d)
a. 1 new post
b. 5 new posts
c. 10 new posts
d. Write in
by Jonathan that result(s) in a flame message being sent by someone in the
LUGNET community, during the probationary period, that is in relation to any
of the points discussed in the Problem Summary. (Note: a new post by
Jonathan would be a new post to any lugnet.* group, including replys to an
ongoing thread.) Violation of probation would result in immediately
revoking posting privileges for a period of six months.
[CUT]
If you would like to change your recorded vote I will be accepting vote
revision/changes until Sunday August 22 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time. The
vote results will be posted between 4 and 8 pm on Monday August 23 (barring
any ISP problems).
Sorry for all the problems. I guess we should consider this a lesson on how
to prepare for future votes. Please remember this vote is not setting any
precedents for the LUGNET community.
I'd like to salvage this vote, but if clarification problems continue, we
might need to just consider this vote a test/fix the problems vote before
the real thing. However, let me reitterate: I would like to salvage this
one if we can.
Thanks,
Adam
PS. Sorry I didn't address this earlier, but I've been working on a part all
evening and I didn't have a chance to check LUGNET until late last night.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: CFV Clarifications and REVISIONS
|
| (...) [snipped Adam's explanation] I think I understood his explanation to mean that I read it as he intended. <Tom puts his index finger between his lips and wiggles it up and down> *bbbbbbbb* But still, after reading that my brain hurts! I (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: CFV Clarifications and REVISIONS
|
| (...) If everyone think that a, b, and c are mutually exclusive choices, yes, then it's clearly stated -- except it's not clear whether a would cascade into b; it doesn't specify that. It doesn't specify whether voting for a also implies voting for (...) (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
|
|
|
|
