On 1 Apr, 21:12, "Dr. Frank N. Furter"
<his.majesty.king....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 11:46 pm, eili...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > I think that voting should be limited to people who have attended at
> > least one Convergence, and I propose that votes be weighted according
> > to Convergence attendance. There are many people who attend
> > Convergence each and every year but do not post regularly on the
> > newsgroup. Some people don't participate in the online community much,
> > but they keep in touch with their friends by other means and go to
> > Convergence to see them. Weighting votes based on total number of
> > Convergences attended would give the same voting "say" to someone who
> > went to C1, C2, and C4 as someone who went to C9, C10, and C12. People
> > who have attended more than one Convergence are more likely to attend
> > in the future. Weighting votes, I think, would be a more accurate
> > reflection of the community's desires. As it stands now, the guy who
> > found out about C13 from a ****tland newspaper and has no clue that C14
> > is even happening can vote and have the same say as someone who has
> > been a regular attendee for years. That doesn't seem fair.
>
> I'm all in favor of this, since it would give me the equivalent of 11
> votes (I paid cash to get into C1, but I have witnesses and was on
> some old, old photo pages). What percentage of last year's margin of
> victory would that amount to?
>
> - Dr. Frank N. Furter
> - A Scientist
I certainly can vouch that you attended C1.
GothPat...who has photos too (I think)
|
