Axel wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 01:54:45 -0500, kest <kest@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>>> 1. The mail-in registration. Originally intended to allow people from
>>> the newsgroup who had never been to a Convergence a vote. Final
>>> result; Voter registraion drives by bidding committees.
>
>> Voter registration drives are obviously bad,
>
> No it wasn't - mail in registration was a good tweak at the time to
> accomodate people who wanted a voice but weren't in the database.
> The problem is that once in place, it was corrupted.
> 'Cos that's the what happens.
It was good at the time. It's not any more. I think it was may fault
too, so I'm stepping right up here:
I will sponsor the immediate retirement of the mail-in process. Let's
take it off the books like: right now.
That gives us some forward momentum, something this annual threads
rarely have. SO... no more mail in. Which leaves us with the choice of
a vacuum OR?
I liked Kest's "invite" suggestion, as long as we built it in a limited
fa****on.
One bit I forgot about in my earlier reply on the subject is the
weighted voting concept - say within the invite framework, a verified
voter/attendee has a weight of 2, while their two invites only have a
weight of 1. This will further limit the potential for abuse, since any
two "dummy" votes will only actually count against on full vote.
Fair? no. But neither is life. This is Convergence! Defend the Palace!
>
>> but it would be nice to
>> still be able to give votes to a.g.ers who haven't yet been able to
make
>> it to convergence. Maybe an existing voter could sponsor 1 or 2
newbies
>> each year? Like invite codes?
>
> & 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.
See above. Limiting potential of abuse makes it a very attractive concept.
>
>>> 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?
The Cabal.
> What counts as enough people?
75% in leader****p roles. not token "liaison" bull****.
For the record - it's been clear that "liaisons" are the
alt.gothic.equivalent of hiring all your friends and relatives for the
sake of them being your friends and relatives when you get into office,
so lets just knock it off already.
> To my mind, the only way that rule can work is if the Cabal are
> comfortable actively rejecting bids.
I lose no sleep over it.
>
> 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!
Once a year, weather we need it or not!
> Got time to rebuild the website?
> Want to write the Convergence FAQ?
I think Peter and I worked this out this morning...
We get all fired up coz we want to reclaim the glory of our ill-spent
youth....until it comes time to do it and we realize just how damn hard
we all worked on spending our youths unwisely.
Suddenly the status quo isn't all that broken. ;)
That being written, I still say mail in is DEAD DEAD DEAD. RIght now. no
more mail in.
-///
|
