HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Kay.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: what does it take to get someone to vote?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 18 Dec 92  18:41:17

On <Dec 17 12:40>, Spiros Triantafyllopoulos (1:103/208) wrote to All:


 ST>Perhaps something more drastic is needed. Force the USENET 
 ST>newsreader
 ST>programs to make it MANDATORY to vote on a certain percentage of 
 ST>CFV's
 ST>otherwise they can't read news... Totally automate the voting 
 ST>process
 ST>(i.e. make it similar to posting to a moderated group which 
 ST>actually
 ST>gets sent to the moderator and so on...). 

 ST>I can imagine the newsreading software doing this:
 ST> 
 ST>  $ rn rec.music.makers.tuba
 ST>  ...........
 ST>  checking news group
 ST>  there is a CVF which you have ignored. You can not read this 
 ST>     news group until you vote. 
 ST>  do you want details of the CFV (y/n) y

And I can imagine a LOT of people voting NO on everything just out of
sheer irritation...  I'm not so sure it's really so desirable to have
everybody vote on usenet items - if the subject is neither one in which
the user has an interest nor one that is so badly misnamed, adequately
handled elsewhere or a Threat to the Net as We Know It (tm).. why SHOULD he
or she vote?  What is the point?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kay Shapero                           ! 
Kay.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org  !  Endeavor to Persevere!
on Fidonet: 1:102/524                 !
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 


--- msged 2.06
From: breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Model UN newsgroup (was talk.politics.model-un)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 23:25:03 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

Matt, I'm sorry I've been away from this for so long.  My time
to lurk USENET varies.... I was an early support of the proposed
model UN (and .world and .un newsgroups)...

I will be voting YES to forming this new group.

---Bob

In article <92347.212836F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>         I do believe that it is time for a call for votes.  I am in the
>         process of drawing up a proposal for Dave Lawrence.   Hope it will
>         be up soon...
>Matt


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nareid@due.unit.no (Helge Nareid)
Subject: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 23:24:12 GMT

>>+>I would like to propose a newsgroup for the patriot movement in the U.S.
>>+>This would include discussions on rights violations by legislation, gold 
>>+>and silver as payment for debts, freedom organizations and many other basic 
>>+>US Constitutional topics.

If it is to be about a U.S. "patriot" movement and other matters political
in the U.S.A, please include "usa" in the title, or put it in the us.*
hierarchy. There happens to be patriots in most other countries as well,
some of them with very different political agendas from yours. Remember,
Usenet is _not_ USAnet! My suggestions are :
	talk.politics.usa.patriot
or	us.politics patriot

(I'm not interested in this group at all, but I think the proposed name
is misleading).

- Helge Nareid

Xref: sparky news.groups:24639 news.config:514
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.config
Subject: Re: Court Rulings Hierarchy
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 8 Dec 92 17:58:18 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1g2lvdINN8eq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> rynes@slc3.ins.cwru.edu (Edward M. Rynes - M.E.D./P.o.D.) writes:

>I had hoped that UUNET would announce this first but I need to move on this
>ASAP!

>UUNET will be dropping the U.S. Supreme Court Opinions.  The distributors
>are now charging money for the opinions and UUNET does not feel it is worth
>the money.  I agree but CWRU is willing to pay the fees so we will continue
>to provide the opinions.

...

>  The `usa' level will be divided up into several sub-groups.

>	courts.usa.config - votes on the structure of the usa hierarchy.

>	courts.usa.fed    - for U.S. Federal Court rulings.

>	courts.usa.state  - for U.S. State Court rulings.

Perhaps us.courts, in the (relatively) new us heirarchy would be better,
leaving other countries to settle their own system for court decisions.

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:48:03 GMT
Organization: negligable

First you complain no notification
but they were notified...
then you complain misleading subject line "CFV:..."
but there was a post with an explicit line...
now you complain one is not enough

What would be enough Dave?  5?  20?  How about we
flood the group with hundreds of postings talking
about a discussion about renaming the group is taking 
place, so much that they can't talk about their music?  

Would that be enough Dave?

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT?????

Every claim you have made has been refuted, except the
one that you were too ... confident in the outcome that
you yourself didn't bother to post any informative 
articles to the people you claim to be so concerned about...

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Nobody has ever had a sexual fantasy about being tied
 to a bed and ravished by somebody dressed as a liberal."    -P.J. O'Rourke
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: help refure the "stink" claim!
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:14:36 GMT
Organization: Mike Singletary Appreciation Society

In article <6726@npri6.npri.com> murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy) writes:
>>My interpretation of a few hundred votes from tens of thousands
>>of subscribers is that something stinks badly. 
>>ross-c
>
>so:          is anyone surprised that the turnout for the r.m.s. vote
>             was "only" 3%?  would someone with a thorough knowledge of
>             the history of newsgroup voting (i.e., neither ross nor myself)
>             care to provide some statistics to refute the "stink" claim?

I've been looking through old backup tapes, trying to find some of
stats on more memorable votes that have been held...but while I wait
for those to spin, I figured I'd mention that I can't recall ever
seeing a vote with more than (on the order of) a thousand participants.

I should also mention that if one really wishes to count turnout,
one should do it in terms of the total number of Usenet participants,
since anyone is eligible to vote.  There are about 450,000 entries
in the addresses file on pit-manager; some of those are duplicates,
but some folks aren't listed at all (for various reasons).  If I
were estimating the size of Usenet, I'd probably use a number around
500,000 as an estimate of "people who regularly read or post or both".
This means that a vote involving 1000 people represents .2% participation.

My interpretation is not that something "stinks badly", it's that the
overwhelming majority of users simply don't care.

---Rsk
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Dec12.202255.5783@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:34:44 GMT

AC> == Adam Costello <amc@wucs1.wustl.edu>

 AC> I don't see why there should be no-votes at all.  I think if 200
 AC> people want a new group, let them have it.  Those who don't want it
 AC> don't have to subscribe.  It's not as if creating new groups increases
 AC> the total volume of USENET.  It just makes it easier for people to
 AC> locate the information they're looking for.

Fine.  Let's see if I can get together 200 votes for, oh, let's pick a good
name, how about "news.groups.adam.costello.weenerbrane"?

Do you *really* think I can't get 200 votes for this?

If 200 people want a new group, if the name is reasonable, they'll have it.
At worst, there's always alt (just ask Jyrki or Joel Furr :).
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
Xref: sparky news.groups:24549 alt.config:7988 alt.folklore.computers:18018
From: weave@apache.dtcc.edu (Ken Weaverling)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: RESULT: comp.society.folklore unmoderation fails 729:151
Date: 17 Dec 1992 09:30:11 -0500
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
NNTP-Posting-Host: apache.dtcc.edu

In article <scs.724598988@hela.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:

>Before getting too excited, it's worth doing a bit of research . . .

True, very true, but I at least italicised appears in my message! :-)

>>In article <1992Dec17.020219.23751news@tygra.Michigan.COM> it *appears* you 
>>   sent a control message:

The Usenet Bill of Rights states: Guilty until proven innocent! 

Let the condemned speak in defense of himself!
-- 
Weave's 10/90 recipe for insanity: Take one programmer, divide into portions: 
10% programming consisting of equal parts in systems and applications plus
admin duties broken down into 20% for Unix, 5% PRIMOS, 10% hardware & network, 
35% DOS/Windows, 10% news, 5% postmaster, and 5% babysitting IRC kiddies.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: starfish@stein.u.washington.edu (Sarah Skovronsky)
Subject:  Don't mess with the folklore people
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:32:48 GMT

Well folks, it looks as if the proposal to unmoderate c.s.folklore, etc.,
has been killed, and rather decisively at that.  Hopefully, this major
anti-hijacking vote tally :) will be the end of the discussion.

And another note:  I appreciate and am impressed by the detail of Mark
Brader's results posting.  Most informative.

Sarah "I voted NO" Skovronsky

-- 
************************************************************************
*            Sarah Skovronsky     starfish@u.washington.edu            *
* "I'm a love interest, just like Kirk, but I don't wear a rug."  --ST *
**********fnord!********furrfu!********hi-keeba!********meep!***********
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:51:30 GMT
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA

jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap) writes:

>Read the RFD and CFV that are posted to your group.  Read the post that
>has third-grade English in its Subject that says the group is going
>to be renamed.  If you can't be bothered, don't bother me.

You mean...

Subject: CFV: rec.music.makers.* reorg

Where does it say in that subject that "rec.music.synth" is to be renamed?

>If it's too complicated or too hard to figure out, DON'T USE IT.
>Build your own.

You forgot the "Nyahh!". 

>Please don't bother to say it's broken if you don't have _concrete_
>suggestions for improvement.  You'll just (help) generate flamewars.

He can say it's broken all he likes. I'll listen.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

             Learn to behave from those who cannot.
From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: did dave hayes really say this?
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:45:01 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA


>If you claim to be a "realist", get real and stop with the implications.
>Things are always important when they bother you. Whether they bother
>you or not is not necessarily relavent to their importance. 
>
>dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)

your second sentence implies that "importance" is relative.
your third sentence implies that "importance" is absolute.
please correct this inconsistency before continuing to post.

ok
dpm
-- 
murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"
Xref: sparky news.groups:24565 alt.native:1460
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* / Automoderation.
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:35:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Dec20.223503.4350
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1h0jbbINNk0@smurf.sti.com> dgreen@smurf.sti.com (Dan R. Greening) writes:
>The problem with suggestions like automoderation is that people fear that it
>will cause something horrible to happen, like squelching ideas, and so they
>react extremely strongly.

No, the problem with automoderation is that it's a technical
nightmare. It would require all postings to soc.motss to be channeled
through one machine: the moderator's. You've just turned the random
graph of Usenet into a hierarchical tree. If that one machine is down,
or a piece of the network is gone, then parts of motss aren't propagated.

Besides which, I don't see how enforcing a "no crossposting" rule will
solve any problems. The major problem with crossposting is we get
stupid flame wars across to talk.politics.misc involving people from
sites that do not enforce Usenet policy (yes, that's optilink.uucp).

There is a simple solution to this problem: don't read those articles.
Use a kill file if you need to.

There are problems with motss volume: it's too damned much. But
crossposting isn't causing it.
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                   There is absolutely no other possibility
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 12 Dec 1992 16:00:53 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <Bz4y4F.KED@polaris.async.vt.edu> jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
>Uncalled for?

Yes, uncalled-for. You seem to have difficulty with the concept of arguing the
idea, not attacking the person.

>The seventy-eight people who've mailed me since the Zippy post
>to congratulate me on excellent flamage seem to disagree, Jay.  Some of the
>more recent correspondents inform me that they want to keep copies of the post
>around for people to read as an example of what a good flame should be.  You've
>made me famous!  Thanks ever so muchly.

This is a Dave Hayes tactic: refer to your mailbox...never mind that it's
completely unverifiable as a source of data for an argument.

>YOU, Jay, are a VERY little person indeed.  Thank you ever so much.)

See what I mean? You don't argue ideas, you attack the person. That kind of
argumentation will get you nowhere. Who will be your next enemy? Whose idea
will get you to attack the person proposing it? Choose carefully; I'm a nice
guy, on the scale of the net.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:05:07 GMT

irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:
>Maybe you didn't realize that dropping a flame war filled with Usenet
>technical gobbledegook into rec.music.synth would drive people off (or
>convince the SYNTH-L gateway maintainer to drop the gateway), but you have
>yet to answer several people's claims that it did. 

I don't think that the gateway was dropped because of me, first of all.
Secondly, this is a real oppressive tactic to use...you are in effect 
saying that complaining may serve to do more damage than the negative action
which prompted it in the first place...which implies (intention or no) 
that you should never complain about anything.

That's a real dangerous and oppresive attitude to promote.

My intention was not to drive people away. Even if that did occur, I am 
not going to continue to acknowledge posts that imply such...because they
_are_ supporting an oppresive position.

>an objection in the first place), and you have not yet rebutted this claim.

Who knows exactly why? Let the list maintainer (the OLD one) speak up.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at
different speeds.  A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing.
From: ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Rename rec.music.maker.synth to rec.music.synth?
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:12:15 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <724118204frey.frey@alfheim.actrix.gen.nz> Bruce Clement writes:
>Nobody seems to be changing their opinion & the volume of discussion is
>IMO increasing without resolving anything.

We went round and round, and then many people just stopped talking about
it.  Now, others have taken up the flag and are going round and round
again, saying all the same things as were said before.  It's almost
(ALMOST) funny watching these previously silent folks mimic the exact
chain of reasoning/argument/progress toward the inevitible brick wall. 

>1) Accept that whatever the ethics of the situation, that the original vote
>   was (technically) within the guidelines
>2) Treat the conversation which has happened since as a RFD to
>    reverse that vote and rename rec.music.maker.synth to rec.music.synth

(This isn't allowed by the guidelines; it must be formalized.)

>- if this is not acceptable, immediately raise an official RFD to that effect.

This is perfectly acceptable to those who feel that the vote *was*
fair.  However, since they don't feel like renaming it back, they have
no reason to follow this suggestion themselves.  This idea has been
mentioned as a definitive solution to the disagreement before, but it
was met with cries of anguish from the opposition.   

The opposition, on the other hand, has not accepted this suggestion 
because it involves admitting that the vote was within the guidelines
and therefore must stand.  They feel that it violated the "spirit" of
the guidelines and the only way to resolve this issue is with a proper
revote -- invalidate the first and hold another.  They do not wish to
accept the results of the original vote, and posting an RFD to rename
rec.music.makers.synth involves implicitly admitting that it exists.

Finally, the opposition may not wish to run a rename vote to change
rec.music.makers.synth to rec.music.synth because they suspect it will
not pass.  Reasons for this abound (including both honest namespace
concerns as well as "spite" votes), but the most practical reason is
that in revoting rec.music.synth --> rec.music.makers.synth, it would
require LESS PEOPLE TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL than to rename rec.music.synth
--> rec.music.synth.  Keep in mind that the goal of the opposition
here is to get rec.music.synth "back."  They would want the revote to
fail, and it takes fewer negative votes to get a vote to fail than it
takes positive votes to get a vote to pass.  Therefore, they would
prefer revoting over renaming it back.

In short, the response to your proposal is "Who will propose the RFD?
The people who think the vote was fine don't see the need, and those
who think the vote was bad object to accepting the passed vote on
principle."  

-sz
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:21:17 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec17.013456.1630@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>When? 
>Real Soon Now. ;-)

...kinda like Windows NT, then.

>>>>>How about posting the articles more frequently?
>>>>How frequently?
>>>Once every three days.
>>Hm. How did you arrive at that number? 
>Gut feeling. 

Hm. I was hoping you had a rationale there...it's hard to balance one gut
feeling against another. Personally, I think weekly should suffice, but I
can't really back that up either. The concern is that the articles not
completely dominate discussion in the group to be affected, as that has been
shown not to work. (See the rec.arts.sf-lovers reorg for an example.)

>Not to n.a.n...but to the affected newsgroups only. 

That makes life simpler, plus or minus making the proposer's life rougher...

>>>Hey, I'm working on improving things. Getting the topic back to this
>>>vote, I really think users weren't kissed first. I'm sorry you disagree. 
>>Your response to a rape (your analogy, not mine) is to unzip your pants?
>My response (to extend the analogy to this case) was to scream for help.
>It's the people in the apartments above who call the cops on ME that are
>inappropriate.

When the folks in the apartment above hear the screams, then come downstairs
to find someone standing over the victim unzipping his pants, then calling the
cops on that person is a natural thing to do.

>>Nevertheless, that does not mean the rest of the net will go along with you.
>As much as I'd like that...I don't expect them to.

Then what, exactly, do you hope to accomplish with your revote demand? If you
don't believe that the rest of the net will go along with it, and having the
rest of the net go along with it is a requirement for it to be successful,
then arguing for it in the belief that the argument is futile is at least
intellectually dishonest...

>>You must convince the admins of the net that the vote was unfair and invalid
>>in order to justify a revote. 
>That's a purely subejctive process, isn't it? 

No more so than any other decision news admins make when doing their jobs.
That, too, is a subjective process.

>>Not even when the article has no acronyms at all in it?
>Not unless it's posted several times in a manner in which you cannot help but
>be aware that something is going on.

See the rec.arts.sf-lovers reorg for an example where a protracted flamewar
produces a thousand or so votes...and that has been called (though not by you
- how many votes do you think constitute adequate participation?) inadequate.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Xref: sparky news.groups:24599 alt.native:1469