[OT Troll] Some questions for Steve Young.

Alan Browne wrote:
Nick Zentena wrote:

What's wrong with the current method of changing the charter? You won't
get an enforcable charter if the normal rules aren't followed. At least I
doubt it.

RFD a request for discussion

Followed by a

CFV call for vote.

Nick


All fine and dandy, however given the current environment, I
would feel better if there was some authentication of voters.


The vote requires an impartial third party. It's part of the process.
Or are you worried about people ballot stuffing?

Nick

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

An amendment in r.p.e.35mm permitting appropriate digital
discussion (lenses, flashes, etc. that are cross-medium) would be
welcome (if perhaps not really neccesary).

Charters can not be amended. There is no mechanism to do so. They are
only founding "documents" for a newsgroup.

--
Charles

Charles" wrote
Charters can not be amended. There is no mechanism to do so. They are
only founding "documents" for a newsgroup.

Charles, that's the way it used to be. I had a discussion with them some
months ago, and they indicated they would work on amendments. Here is a
thread where I discussed it with them:
Msg-ID:
From: "Steve Young"
Newsgroups:
news.groups,rec.photo.digital,rec.gambling.poker,r ec.photo.equipment.35mm
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:42 PM
Subject: Enforceable Amended Charters?

ohh, I see I crossposted it here

Steve Young

Nick Zentena wrote:
What's wrong with the current method of changing the charter? You
won't get an enforcable charter if the normal rules aren't followed.

At least I doubt it.

RFD a request for discussion

Followed by a

CFV call for vote.

Alan Browne wrote
All fine and dandy, however given the current environment, I
would feel better if there was some authentication of voters.

"Nick Zentena" wrote
The vote requires an impartial third party. It's part of the process.
Or are you worried about people ballot stuffing?

I'll add, Usenet 3rd party vote takers already exist, it would be the same
as a new group vote. Here is their site: http://www.uvv.org/

Nick Zentena wrote:

The vote requires an impartial third party. It's part of the process.
Or are you worried about people ballot stuffing?


He is afraid he will be on the losing side,
and that the precious but unwelcome SI
will have to go somewhere it is on-topic
- in other words, not here.

"Steve Young" wrote:

I'll add, Usenet 3rd party vote takers already exist, it would be the
same as a new group vote. Here is their site: http://www.uvv.org/

You know damn well that the voting pool will not be limited to rec.photo
regular posters. Every Tom, Dick and Harry who reads news.group (trolls
included) will get to put in their 2 cents as to how we should run our
group.

You're barking up the wrong tree, troll. Get lost.

--
"Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx)

-Richard Cockburn

In article , Steve Young
wrote:

Charles, that's the way it used to be. I had a discussion with them some
months ago, and they indicated they would work on amendments. Here is a
thread where I discussed it with them:

No, that is the way it is now. You had a discussion about amending
charters. Nothing came of it.

--
Charles

Nick Zentena wrote:

Lisa Horton wrote:


What I am in favor of is the will of the group as a whole prevailing.
My position on amending charters is almost irrelevant. But to express
my current position clearly, I am open to the idea of creating a
mechanism by which newsgroup participants might have the ability to
change charters. Open to, not necessarily in favor of.

What's wrong with the current method of changing the charter? You won't
get an enforcable charter if the normal rules aren't followed. At least I
doubt it.

RFD a request for discussion

Followed by a

CFV call for vote.

Nick

If there's an existing mechanism that works, I'm in favor of it.

Lisa

TP wrote:

Nick Zentena wrote:

The vote requires an impartial third party. It's part of the process.
Or are you worried about people ballot stuffing?

He is afraid he will be on the losing side,
and that the precious but unwelcome SI
will have to go somewhere it is on-topic
- in other words, not here.

Well now "unwelcome" is not the universal feeling about the SI. Some
are passionate advocates, many just don't care. Those who enjoy it do
have the courtesy to label their posts, making it trivially easy to
simply not see the bulk of SI related traffic.

I'm sure that your opposition to the SI has already been noted by anyone
who is interested.

Lisa

Kibo informs me that Nick Zentena stated
that:

Alan Browne wrote:
[charter change system]

All fine and dandy, however given the current environment, I
would feel better if there was some authentication of voters.

The vote requires an impartial third party. It's part of the process.
Or are you worried about people ballot stuffing?

Of course. Steve Young has already admitted to posting under numerous
valid email accounts, & all you need in order to register a vote in a
CFV is a valid email address. I'm also concerned about all the votes
that'll come from his troll-buddies in news.groups. And besides all
that, the only reason that a charter update has even been discussed here
is as a direct result of Steve Young's trolling activity - if he & his
buddies were to vanish from here, I doubt that any of us would even
*want* to change the charter.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------