From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: All of you guidelines thumpers (was Re: BENDING THE GUIDELINES IS
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:13:11 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Apr12.151713.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
writes:

>In article <92102.150802JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>  Furthermore in a recent article by Iain McCord regarding the
>> rec.games.frp reorganization, the suggestion was made that as
>> soon as the bending of the guidelines is done by the rec.personals.*
>> vote, that the same excuse be used to try to push an unpopular group
>> through. 
>
>I understand why you are concerned about the spectre of
>ultra-complicated votes arising in the future, but such restrictions
>hardly ring a death knell for the net. Rather than forcing several
>groups through on one vote, what they require is that all groups pass
>before any are created. This is a quite different thing.

It may be a quite different thing, but its effects are very similar. The
point of the "one group, one vote" guideline is to prevent unpopular groups
riding on the back of popular ones. If the guideline didn't exist, people
could group together "xxx.sensible.group" and "xxx.hobbyhorse" in the same
vote. Assuming most voters were strongly in favour of "xxx.sensible.group"
and don't care about or are mildly against "xxx.hobbyhorse" (i.e. they would
vote for "xxx.sensible.group", but abstain or possibly vote against
"xxx.hobbyhorse"), the result would probably be that they would vote in
favour of the combined proposal. This could mean that "xxx.hobbyhorse" gets
passed without actually having much popular support.

If you allow people to hold separate votes, but say in advance that they
won't implement any of the groups unless they all pass, a very similar thing
happens: pressure is placed on the voter who wants "xxx.sensible.group" to
vote for "xxx.hobbyhorse" as well, since voting against or even abstaining
on "xxx.hobbyhorse" can effectively act as a vote against
"xxx.sensible.group". I would therefore say that allowing such "conditional
implementation of vote results" clauses is just as much against the spirit
of the guidelines as breaking the "one group, one vote" rule would be.

So I don't believe you can allow this sort of proviso in general. Possibly
you can relax the guideline in specific circumstances, but you need to be
very careful about how you do so. For instance, you might argue that the
four proposed "rec.personals.*" groups are obviously symmetric in some way.
But the homophobes that people seem to be worried about would feel
differently, and they are entitled to their opinion. You're very likely just
to stir up controversy by doing this, and controversy is something to be
avoided if at all possible on Usenet.

A suggestion, which I believe would not set a bad precedent: hold a 5-part
vote. The first four parts are the separate votes on the four proposed
groups. The fifth says something like:

  "The proposer believes that these groups do not make sense unless they are
   all implemented. He would therefore like permission not to create any of
   them unless all four pass. Please vote YES to this part of the vote if
   you want to give him this permission, NO if you believe the four votes
   must be honoured separately."

  (Aside: I'm sure a better wording could be devised!)

If the last part succeeds under the normal Usenet voting rules (i.e. 2/3
majority and at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes), no groups are
created unless all four pass (in which case, all four are created); if the
last part fails, then precisely those groups that passed are created.

So the idea is essentially to let the voters decide whether it is reasonable
to grant an exception in this particular case. If an substantial majority
agrees that it is, the exception is granted.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: news.groups