From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Improprieties (soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.tamil
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:02:16 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: AT&T

In article <92242.190548JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug28.201119.17271@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com
> (alok.vijayvargia) says:
> >
> >In article <1992Aug27.190622.18639@resonex.com>, michael@resonex.com (Michael
> >Bryan) writes:
> >>
> >> Net.Somebody.AI:
> >>    You were vote taker at the time, and posted some messages asking for
> >>    votes, the contents of which went against the spirit of the Usenet
> >
> >What's so damn wrong in reminding people to cast their votes and hope
> >them to vote favorably ?
> 
> 
>  Holy smoke !! I go away on vacation and the minute I come back
> I find that the SCIA/Alok controversy is still going on !!! Unbelievable !!

And it will go on ...

>  OK, one more time I'll try to get through to you and tell you what was
> wrong:
> 
>  If the proponent and the vote-taker are one and the same, then *any*
> vote canvassing (however subtle) by the vote-taker during the course
> of the vote is *unfair* 

How much damage can a couple of mails do considering that such mails
turn off people to vote favorabily as it encourages some others to do so ?

> since the vote-taker knows whether one more YES vote is needed for the 
> proposal to pass.
> 

This is an erroneous assumption. Vote taker does not always know
that. Not all vote takers are keeping a running count of YES/NO votes.
Some vote takers do not even count the votes at all until the close of
the voting.

>  If the proponent and the vote-taker are two different persons, then
> the proponent may campaign for votes *provided* that he has not been
> informed by the vote-taker as to how the vote is going. Unfortunately,

I don't think any canvassing at all should be done after the issue of CFV.
Whether it is negative or positive or whether it is by the vote taker or 
anyone, it is not good to have it.

> the vote-taker may violate this, but unless one of them squeals on himself
> it is pretty difficult to prove. That's why I am of the opinion that
> vote-takers should be volunteers who have no interest in the outcome
> of the vote and don't even vote (as David Wright did in the second SCIA
> vote).

While I agree with having an unbiased vote taker, the second vote for
SCIA should not be valid since the CFV was issued under abnormal circumstances.

> >In case of soc.culture.tamil we have people like K. Srinivasan (One of the
> >organizers of the group along with the vote taker), Prem Kumar , Aruna
> >Venkatachalam, Mr. Bazyar etc. doing the campaigning during the vote.
> >Some of the campaigners asked people on email nets to vote YES or
> >abstain. There is evidence that this line of campaigning was shared
> >by the vote taker as well. NOw just because I can not get access to
> >his phone calls and emails to fellow organizers, does not mean that
> >he did not do it. His writings on the net indicate that he too was
> >involved in this. If this whole process is not against the net spirit, I 
> >have to question this damned spirit of the net.
> 
> 
>  If you have irrefutable evidence that the *VOTE-TAKER* was involved in
> campaigning for votes or disclosed the preliminary results to the other
> proponents, then present it *HERE* and I will join you. Otherwise, anything
> you say is nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation ...
> 

The evidence was shown by Kuram Narayan. He pointed out a mail by the
vote taker to a prospective voter in which the vote taker advised him to
vote YES or abstain. The fact that this was done just before the issue of
CFV set the tone of the other organizers/canvassers who solicited votes
during the voting using similar theme. 

NOw this may not be explicitely forbidden in the guidelines just as in case of
soc.culture.indian.american, however if the vote taker's behaviour was
considered biased or inappropriate in that vote, it is similarly inappropriate 
in case of soc.culture.tamil too.

The vote taker's behaviour in case of soc.culture.tamil violated the 
appearance of the vote taker to be unbiased. After making such biased
and improper remarks, he went on to issue the CFV and selected himself
to be the vote taker.

Disproportionate ratio of YES/NO votes compared to a balanced debate during
RFD phase added to the suspicion. His refusal to provide email records
corresponding to the votes for almost 30 days added further suspicion. Todate 
he has not provided me with the voting records. I am the principal opponent. 
If there is nothing wrong with the voting records, there should be no problem 
in providing the file to the principal opponent.

Such behaviour by the vote taker is inappropriate.
A repeat vote should be conducted with an unbiased vote taker and no
canvassing by anyone during the voting.

> -- Jose L. Martinez --


Alok Vijayvargia