On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:28:03 -0500, kest wrote:
> Axel <axel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> scrawled:
>
>>
>> & the same potential flaw exists - if I have a bunch of friends on
>> the system & can get their invite codes then I can take over the vote.
>>
> Hrmmm. How are we currently ensuring one net.goth, one vote?
Price of a stamp, theoretically. There's more than a few people out
there that get dupe votes now, and they *generally* play fair and only
vote once. It's more of an issue for "internet n00bs" that haven't
rigged themselves with a fairly permenant email address and enough
technology that they don't have to do the "I'm drowning in spam and need
a new email address!" dance. I would be surprised if there's a few folks
in our fairly cruddy database have five or six entries, mostly marked as
Invalid, for that kind of thing.
>>>> 2. Committees. we restrict who can put in a bid? If so
>>>> what restrictions make sense?
>>>
>>>I think they can't just throw in a newsgroup representative as an
>>>afterthought. A percentage of the committee rule is one option. (And
>>>they must be active contributers. Not 'oh, I know where it is and
>>>might have posted an ad for my club night there once.')
>>
>> How to we regulate that?
>> What counts as enough people?
>> What counts as active participation in the bid?
>> & this approach means not just active contributers to the ng, also
>> active contributers to the committee.
>>
> Yes, all of those are issues. As I said, a percentage rule is one
> option. Therefore 'enough people' might be 'at least half'. If the
> size or make up of the committee changes, the rule remains. Active
> participation...well...we know ours when we see them. If we had to
> quantify it, some certain number of non-ad posts spanning a certain
> amount of time, I guess.
I'm okay with the C*b*l taking the responsibility for thra****ng around
and making a final arbitrary decision on individual cases. Mostly it'll
be a matter of "Hmm... yeah, he sounds familiar. Let's see what Deja
says."
>> To my mind, the only way that rule can work is if the Cabal are
>> comfortable actively rejecting bids.
>>
>> Which to my mind really turns up the heat on us, makes us far more
>> Sooper Speshul 733T than we should be & (and this is the really evil
>> bit) requires WORK!
>>
> Yeah, there is that. :/ Weren't we at some point in the last discussion
> throwing around potentially some sort of a two stage bidding process?
> Where it gets posted here first and has to get ratified or some ****,
> before the actual vote?
>
> I guess, thinking through these issues you've presented, there's sort of
> two approaches. One is, these are the rules, they are objective rules,
> there are obvious ways to tell if you are in violation of the rules. In
> this case, 1) someone has to enforce the rules and 2) the rules are
> subject to being gamed - people looking for loopholes. On the other
> hand, you don't run much risk of accusations of favoritism, as
> everything is black and white.
>
> The second approach is **** rules, this is our party and as long as we
> know what we're looking for, we can tell who to bounce. While it sounds
> really nice and freeform, I am skeptical of this, because it hasn't been
> working for us. The constitution of 'we' becomes much more im****tant in
> this case, subject to changing whims and attention drift, and someone
> may still need to enforce the bouncing, except now they have less weight
> behind them and accusations of favoritism run rampant.
Weight we got. LLC. Trademarks. Filed with the gummermint and
everything.
Accusations of favoritism can still fly, of course, and they'll probably
even be valid. The question becomes then of how much the LLC board
cares.
>>>> 3. Voters. Who can vote?
>>
>>>I think the feeling last time was voting was mostly ok, but I think we
>>>should make an effort to educate people on what this thing's all
>>>about. We should have resources available from altgothic.com about
>>>the newsgroup, the history of convergence, advice about what to look
>>>for in a bid proposal, etc.
>>
>> Got time to rebuild the website?
>> Want to write the Convergence FAQ?
>>
> I'd say yes and I do feel in fact that I have vaguely volunteered for
> this duty before, except I know I also volunteered for rewriting the
> newsgroup FAQ and we all know how far that's come....
>
> I don't necessarily feel we need to write volumes. Maybe just a page or
> two. Maybe we can throw up a wiki and all contribute.
We got the altgothic.com Convergence FAQ out there, essentially the
voting materials. http://altgothic.com/faqs/voting.php
That's not to say
that it's complete and correct, much less how we want it to be in the
brave new world, but it's a start.
> I just know that I heard a lot of people saying at the c13 panel that
> they didn't know about the newsgroup connection or the history, and I
> don't necessarily want to exclude them because of that, but it's really
> ****ing im****tant that they at least know. I also know that people have
> traditionally paid more attention to what city the bid is in than
> anything else about it, when really that's one of the least im****tant
> aspects.
FAQ, Panel video are available for sure. We should probably see if we
can find online that video that ... uhm... Jeannie? Sounds right... was
shooting. I haven't seen the C13 stuff, butt the parts about her trip on
GothCruise (the real one) did a good job of capturing the mood of the
thing, so I hope the Convergence and Whitby ones are equally good.
[...]
>> Plus, if by this point we don't have as much community cohesion as
>> a.g. had in 1994, what's the point?
>>
>
> Family Reunion?
That's largely what it is, innit? Or at least what us old farts use it
for.
--
56. My Legions of Terror will be trained in basic marksman****p. Any who
cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for
target practice.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
|
