SP

Shannon Patrick Sullivan

03/07/2003 10:17 AM

[ANNOUNCEMENT] r.a.dw.m Moderator Voting

Voting is now under way for the 2003 rec.arts.drwho.moderated Moderator
Elections. The voting period extends from the original issue of this
message on July 3rd, 2003 until 17:00 GMT on July 18th, 2003.

HOW TO VOTE
===========
* The ballot is included at the bottom of this message. Please follow the
instructions precisely.

* For each candidate, please vote either YES, NO or ABSTAIN. You may also
choose not to vote for a candidate (this would have the same effect as a
vote to abstain).

* The final tally for a candidate is defined as the number of YES votes
they receive minus the number of NO votes they receive.

* Upon the close of voting, the candidates will be ranked in the order of
their final tally. The candidate who places first will receive the first
vacant moderator position; the candidate who places second will receive
the second vacant moderator position; and so on until all vacant moderator
positions have been filled.

* Ballots should be e-mailed to the Chief Returning Officer at

[email protected]

* Ballots must be e-mailed from a VALID e-mail address and must include
the FULL NAME of the voter. A reply will be sent to confirm the receipt of
the vote within 24 hours. If the reply bounces back, the ballot will not
be counted. If you do not receive a reply within 24 hours confirming the
receipt of your ballot, please contact the Chief Returning Officer at the
e-mail address above.

* Any individual may vote no more than once for any given candidate. After
your vote has been submitted, you may not change it. If you vote multiple
times, only your first vote will be counted.

* The identity of all voters, and the way in which they voted, will be
known only to the Chief Returning Officer.

* Please e-mail any questions, comments or concerns to the Chief Returning
Officer using the e-mail address listed above.

================ please delete everything before this line ===============
================= do not delete anything after this line =================

Full Name:
E-mail address:

Candidate: David Brider
Vote:

Candidate: Andy K. Kitching
Vote:

Candidate: Glenn Langford
Vote:

Candidate: Karen Jo Nyctolops
Vote:

Candidate: Brett O'Callaghan
Vote:

============================= end of ballot ============================


This topic has 46 replies

jJ

[email protected] (Jonathan Blum)

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

09/07/2003 8:14 PM

ZC TGS <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Which makes me repeat my question which no one as yet answered...

> How do you confirm 100percent that the name given by the poster is in
> fact their real name, and not a fake one?

There are no 100-percents in life. Not even with digital signatures.
The question that matters is if you've got a *better* chance of
detecting fraud with this policy.

Regards,
Jon Blum

At

[email protected] (twosheds)

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

10/07/2003 9:16 AM

Since no one has offered an upper class tax cut, the abolition of
children and a tax on having more than one thumb, I shall not be
voting.

dD

[email protected] (Daibhid Ceannaideach)

in reply to [email protected] (twosheds) on 10/07/2003 9:16 AM

10/07/2003 12:56 PM

>
>From: [email protected] (twosheds)
>Date: 10/07/03 16:16 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>Since no one has offered an upper class tax cut, the abolition of
>children and a tax on having more than one thumb, I shall not be
>voting.

And I'd like to know what their stand is on banning foxes from hunting, and
replacing them with the Euro.

--
Dave
Now Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc for FOUR years
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Nanotechnology could be huge."
Lord Sainsbury, Science and Innovation Minister

GL

Glenn Langford

in reply to [email protected] (twosheds) on 10/07/2003 9:16 AM

10/07/2003 7:58 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Daibhid Ceannaideach) wrote:

> >
> >From: [email protected] (twosheds)
> >Date: 10/07/03 16:16 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >Since no one has offered an upper class tax cut, the abolition of
> >children and a tax on having more than one thumb, I shall not be
> >voting.
>
> And I'd like to know what their stand is on banning foxes from hunting, and
> replacing them with the Euro.

Whatever you want it to be...

:-)

--
Glenn Langford
[email protected]

SP

Shannon Patrick Sullivan

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

05/07/2003 4:41 PM

Long ago in an English winter, ZC TGS said:
> This I have issues with. Does FULL NAME mean the voters real name or
> their USENET Nick Identity?
>
Full name -- something that could be verified if there was ever any
question about, for example, somebody voting multiple times from different
accounts.

> And if voting mean I have to give my real name then sorry but I don't
> think that is acceptable.
>
None of this information will be made known to anyone but myself, so I'm
not sure what you're worried about. But if you really don't feel it's
acceptable, then you've always got the option of not voting. That would be
unfortunate, as I'd hope everyone interested in the moderation of the
newsgroup would cast their votes, but it's your choice.

Shannon

--
| Shannon Patrick Sullivan | [email protected] |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
/ Doctor Who: A Brief History of Time (Travel) go.to/drwho-history \
\__ We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars __/

CM

Charles Martin

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 05/07/2003 4:41 PM

09/07/2003 9:46 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
ZC TGS <[email protected]> wrote:

> How can you possibly confirm someones real name on here or not?

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I've had a pretty good
track record in finding people when I really needed to. Friends in, um,
telecommunications, relatives in the legal and law enforcement areas,
and more than a little "virtual shoe leather." :)

> As far as I can see only official documented proof with name and
>
> address on it such as a bill, etc can confirm that 100percent, and I
>
> doubt anyone will be willing to hand such documents over due to the
>
> matters of data protection.

Perhaps not everyone thinks as you do about this. I don't recall ever
meeting Shannon (perhaps in passing at a con, but other than that ....)
and yet I'd quite happily provide proof of identity if he needed it to
verify my vote. Frankly I'd be glad to be asked. It's not like I have to
publish my ATM pin code in the group or anything. The whole matter is
between you and the votetaker and absolutely nobody else.

Maybe I've been in America too long (make that "probably"), but I'm
quite used to having to provide identification for just about every
purchase (my debit card actually says "ask for photo ID" in place of my
signature), every time I want to enter a secure public building, every
time I want to ride a train or airplane, buy a drink (I'm old, but I
look young apparently), go to a nightclub, visit my wife at her
workplace, etc etc etc.

I must show my identity card(s) to complete strangers at least three
times a day, minimum.

Hell, you have to show your ID just to hire a video these days. It's
much more likely that some pimply-faced 17-year-old minimum-wage-earner
with a photographic memory and a porn-site addiction is going to "steal"
my identity than Shannon Patrick Sullivan.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just inviting you to look at it from a
somewhat different perspective.
--
Cheers,
_Chas_
http://www.apple.com/switch
non-spammers can write to chasm at mac (dot com)

SP

Shannon Patrick Sullivan

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 05/07/2003 4:41 PM

09/07/2003 10:14 PM

Long ago in an English winter, Charles Martin said:
> Perhaps not everyone thinks as you do about this. I don't recall ever
> meeting Shannon (perhaps in passing at a con, but other than that ....)

Nope. Haven't been to a con (yet).

Shannon

--
| Shannon Patrick Sullivan | [email protected] |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
/ Doctor Who: A Brief History of Time (Travel) go.to/drwho-history \
\__ We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars __/

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 05/07/2003 4:41 PM

07/07/2003 3:14 PM



On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:01:13 CST, "Brett O'Callaghan"

<[email protected]> wrote:



>ZC TGS <[email protected]> wrote:

>

>

>Dude - it's too late.





How is it too late when the voting goes on until 17:00 GMT on 18 July

2003?

.

MH

Martin Hoscik

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

06/07/2003 12:46 AM



Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:

> Long ago in an English winter, ZC TGS said:



>

> In any case, I'm not debating this. If you don't like it, e-mail the mods

> and ask them to make a ruling. If they tell me to not bother with full

> names, then I won't bother with full names.

>



FFS - vote or don't. It's not like this is the first time we've all done

this.



--

------------------------

Martin Hoscik

www.mayorwatch.org.uk

www.ukgovernment.org

------------------------



.

CM

Charles Martin

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

06/07/2003 11:03 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Glenn Langford) wrote:

> Shannon's just trying to ensure, as much as he possibly can, that
> votes are "legal". We wouldn't want to have a situation where an
> election was rigged by one or two people voting under a raft of
> pseudonyms now, would we? :-)

Given that there are people on this group who post (sometimes in the
same thread) under different pseudonyms, the possibility of
"ballot-stuffing" is not one that can be dismissed. There is at least
one person here who posts under no less than four aliases.

I myself use two different "signatures" (though they are the same
identity and email address), one for moderator business and another for
just normal group participation, so I'm not saying pseuds (or multiple
identities) are bad.

Makes me wonder, though, how many of us there really ARE here sometimes!
:)

We had some problems with people attempting to vote multiple times under
different identities in the vote to create THIS newsgroup, you may
remember. Luckily, the ballot-stuffers lost anyway.

FWIW, I think Shannon is absolutely right. He's done this before, he
knows the rules and Usenet conventions, and it's his call.

--
_Chas_
Moderator, rec.arts.drwho.moderated
FAQ, Charter & Styleguide: http://www.thecabal.org/~radwm/
Discussion group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/modish/
RADWM Quotefile: http://nitro9.earth.uni.edu/doctor/radwmquotes/index.html
Quotefile nominations: [email protected]

jJ

[email protected] (Jim Vowles)

in reply to Charles Martin on 06/07/2003 11:03 PM

09/07/2003 4:50 PM

Andrew McCaffrey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jim Vowles <[email protected]> wrote:
> > And I'm *certainly* a different person than either -- as is Andrew
> > McCaffrey. If nothing else, there exists a photograph containing Jon,
> > Andrew, and myself.
>
> I deny everything!

Huh. Just the sort of thing I'd say!

Wait, no I wouldn't....

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to Charles Martin on 06/07/2003 11:03 PM

09/07/2003 7:05 AM



On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:01:40 CST, [email protected] (Jim Vowles) wrote:



>And I'm *certainly* a different person than either -- as is Andrew

>McCaffrey. If nothing else, there exists a photograph containing Jon,

>Andrew, and myself.





Obviously a fake then :)

.

CM

Charles Martin

in reply to Charles Martin on 06/07/2003 11:03 PM

08/07/2003 1:25 AM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Daibhid Ceannaideach) wrote:

> >From: Charles Martin [email protected]
> >Date: 07/07/03 06:03 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >I myself use two different "signatures" (though they are the same
> >identity and email address), one for moderator business and another for
> >just normal group participation, so I'm not saying pseuds (or multiple
> >identities) are bad.
> >
> >Makes me wonder, though, how many of us there really ARE here sometimes!
> >:)
>
> It's been suggested on occasion that Jon Blum and Jack Bevin are the *only*
> people in the books threads. And possibly that they're the same person anyway.
> Since *I* was involved in the books thread, I tend to regard this as unlikely.
> I mean, I'd *know*, wouldn't i?

LOL!

I've met both Jon and Jack, and verified that they are in fact two
totally different people.

But consider this: we don't know that YOU exist. :)
--
Cheers,
_Chas_
http://www.apple.com/switch
non-spammers can write to chasm at mac (dot com)

jJ

[email protected] (Jim Vowles)

in reply to Charles Martin on 06/07/2003 11:03 PM

09/07/2003 7:01 AM

Charles Martin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Daibhid Ceannaideach) wrote:
>
> > >From: Charles Martin [email protected]
> > >Date: 07/07/03 06:03 GMT Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >I myself use two different "signatures" (though they are the same
> > >identity and email address), one for moderator business and another for
> > >just normal group participation, so I'm not saying pseuds (or multiple
> > >identities) are bad.
> > >
> > >Makes me wonder, though, how many of us there really ARE here sometimes!
> > >:)
> >
> > It's been suggested on occasion that Jon Blum and Jack Bevin are the *only*
> > people in the books threads. And possibly that they're the same person anyway.
> > Since *I* was involved in the books thread, I tend to regard this as unlikely.
> > I mean, I'd *know*, wouldn't i?
>
> LOL!
>
> I've met both Jon and Jack, and verified that they are in fact two
> totally different people.

And I'm *certainly* a different person than either -- as is Andrew
McCaffrey. If nothing else, there exists a photograph containing Jon,
Andrew, and myself.

CM

Charles Martin

in reply to Charles Martin on 06/07/2003 11:03 PM

09/07/2003 9:52 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Jim Vowles) wrote:

> And I'm *certainly* a different person than either -- as is Andrew
> McCaffrey. If nothing else, there exists a photograph containing Jon,
> Andrew, and myself.
>

I haven't trusted photographs since Photoshop 7 came out. I could put
Elvis and Jesus in that photo in 10 minutes, tops. :)
--
Cheers,
_Chas_
http://www.apple.com/switch
non-spammers can write to chasm at mac (dot com)

SP

Shannon Patrick Sullivan

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

09/07/2003 9:21 AM

Long ago in an English winter, Distant Dave said:
> That's fair enough - but I won't be voting because I have other
> priorities.

In case anyone missed my earlier post, I've already said that I'll relax
the "Full Name" requirement in the case of well-established nicknames;
these will be adjudged on a case-by-case basis.

Shannon

--
| Shannon Patrick Sullivan | [email protected] |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
/ Doctor Who: A Brief History of Time (Travel) go.to/drwho-history \
\__ We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars __/

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

05/07/2003 5:38 PM



On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 17:25:06 CST, Shannon Patrick Sullivan

<[email protected]> wrote:



>Long ago in an English winter, ZC TGS said:

>> So what's stopping me from lying about my name? You don't know my real

>> name so how do you verify it?

>>

>Because proof can be requested if there is cause for doubt.





And once again the issue of privacy and data protection comes up. What

proof could you possibly ask for which doesn't break the Data

Protection Act? I certainly would not be willing to provide

confidential documents containing my name and address, etc which is

the only real way of confirming my identity.





>

>> What's the point having a newsgroup where people can be anonymous and

>> well behaved and active posters, yet then stop them from voting

>> because they don't use their real name?

>>

>Because, having considerable experience at this sort of thing, I know that

>it is inadvisable not to have some sort of validation in a balloting

>process -- even if the likelihood of it being needed is very small.









>>> But if you really don't feel it's

>>>acceptable, then you've always got the option of not voting.

>>

>> Not voting is not an acceptable option either. It's a denial of a

>> right.

>>

>Nobody's rights are being denied -- if you want to vote, use your full

>name. It's very simple.



As I said, it's not very simply.



If I'm allowed to post with an anonymous nick then I should also be

allowed to vote with that nick.



If the nick is acceptable for posting then it should be equally valid

and acceptable for voting.





>In any case, I'm not debating this. If you don't like it, e-mail the mods

>and ask them to make a ruling. If they tell me to not bother with full

>names, then I won't bother with full names.



.

BO

"Brett O'Callaghan"

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

07/07/2003 2:01 PM

ZC TGS <[email protected]> wrote:


Dude - it's too late.

Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

JC

"J.J. Chambers"

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

09/07/2003 11:46 AM

"Jim Vowles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "J.J. Chambers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> > Can I examine your brains with a microscope?
>
> Possibly, but Shannon's a respected academic, so you probably won't
> *need* a microscope. The same can probably NOT be said of others in
> this group.

If you're going to make veiled insults at people, why not name names? It's
hard to tell whether you're talking about just me or anybody who objected to
Shannon's original request for full names (which he backed off on,
apparently after I had already sent mine in).

JC

"J.J. Chambers"

in reply to "J.J. Chambers" on 09/07/2003 11:46 AM

09/07/2003 12:31 PM

"Alan S. Wales" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "J.J. Chambers" [email protected]
> >It's
> >hard to tell whether you're talking about just me or anybody who objected
to
> >Shannon's original request for full names
>
> A couple of questions for you J.J.
>
> Why did you think of yourself when Jim mentioned people on the group that
have
> microscopic brains?

Because he was responding to me and he has a history of insulting me both
inside and outside of this group. It's reasonable inference about what his
intention was.

> Why do you think that Jim was referring to only those who objected to
Shannon's
> request?


He may well have been referring to more people than just that, but his
posting to this thread suggests to me that was his motivation for the insult
in the first place. Unless he's just insulting people entirely at random,
which I don't think is likely.

pA

[email protected] (Alan S. Wales)

in reply to "J.J. Chambers" on 09/07/2003 11:46 AM

09/07/2003 11:56 AM

>"J.J. Chambers" [email protected]

>>Jim Vowles" <[email protected]> wrote

>>> "J.J. Chambers" <[email protected]> wrote

>> > Can I examine your brains with a microscope?

>> Possibly, but Shannon's a respected academic, so you probably won't
>> *need* a microscope. The same can probably NOT be said of others in
>> this group.

>If you're going to make veiled insults at people, why not name names?

Because then they wouldn't be veiled?

>It's
>hard to tell whether you're talking about just me or anybody who objected to
>Shannon's original request for full names

A couple of questions for you J.J.

Why did you think of yourself when Jim mentioned people on the group that have
microscopic brains?

Why do you think that Jim was referring to only those who objected to Shannon's
request?

--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

07/07/2003 11:16 AM



On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:43:58 CST, "Devin L. Ganger"

<[email protected]> wrote:



>On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:03:15 CST, Charles Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

>

>> FWIW, I think Shannon is absolutely right. He's done this before, he

>> knows the rules and Usenet conventions, and it's his call.

>

>Usenet convention, at least in the Big 8 creation process, is to allow

>posting nyms as "real names."





I decided to look into the Big 8 rules that Devin mentions via Google

and found the following at

http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/big-eight.html



---

The precise definition of anonymous is at the discretion of the

votetaker but should not be interpreted as requiring all voters to use

their real name; votes from well-established pseudonyms should be

accepted.

---



As you can see above votes from well established pseudonyms should be

accepted.



I've been on RADWM since since it started and before that on RADW

since 1994 and tend to think that I am a regular poster with an

established pseudonym. Therefore that should be accepted.



Regards,

ZC

.

PH

"Paul Harman"

in reply to ZC TGS on 07/07/2003 11:16 AM

08/07/2003 3:49 AM

From: "ZC TGS" <[email protected]>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:10:17 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)
> wrote:
> >As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've
never
> >understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.
>
> For the simple reason that it protects people to a certain extent if
> someone decides make personal attacks on them in a newsgroup.

Bizarrely, I suffered from the converse problem; I used to use a 'nym that
unbeknownst to me was also used by someone who was later accused of child
molestation... I changed it shortly after being visited at work by Scotland
Yard's internet child pornography investigation unit...

Paul

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to ZC TGS on 07/07/2003 11:16 AM

08/07/2003 3:56 AM



On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:49:06 CST, "Paul Harman"

<[email protected]> wrote:



>From: "ZC TGS" <[email protected]>

>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:10:17 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)

>> wrote:

>> >As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've

>never

>> >understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.

>>

>> For the simple reason that it protects people to a certain extent if

>> someone decides make personal attacks on them in a newsgroup.

>

>Bizarrely, I suffered from the converse problem; I used to use a 'nym that

>unbeknownst to me was also used by someone who was later accused of child

>molestation... I changed it shortly after being visited at work by Scotland

>Yard's internet child pornography investigation unit...





Yikes!



Although something like that happening must be rare rather then the

normal.



When I first started posting to newsgroups back in 1994 it was under

my real name. Not long afterwards an attack situation developed that

pretty much made me decide never to use my real name on USENET.





.

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to ZC TGS on 07/07/2003 11:16 AM

08/07/2003 5:10 PM



On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:44:16 CST, "Brett O'Callaghan"

<[email protected]et.au> wrote:



>ZC TGS <[email protected]> wrote:

>

>>[email protected] (Keith Hood)

>>>As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've never

>>>understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.

>>For the simple reason that it protects people to a certain extent if

>>someone decides make personal attacks on them in a newsgroup.

>

>Possibly. But let's not get off track - what's to stop you using your

>real name in a vote that only Shannon (a long term, respected member

>of the community) will see?







And I'm also a long term member of this community since 1994. Since

then I've used a nick for the most part which as been accepted and not

caused any problems. So why should it cause a problem when voting?

Especially when USENET voting rules accepts nicknames for voting

purposes.



As I've stated elsewhere, I don't use my real name on here because I

don't want it abused in anyway,



Also, dispite asking many times, no one as yet been able to answer the

very simple question:



'How do you prove beyond doubt that the name given by the voter is in

fact their real name?'



If I said my real name was Nick Smith, how do you prove it?



Since there is no effective way of proving if a voter has given their

real name, why not just accept the voters posting nickname.



Why is that question not being answered? It's been asked enough

times.

.

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to ZC TGS on 07/07/2003 11:16 AM

08/07/2003 3:19 AM



On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:10:17 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)

wrote:







>As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've never

>understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.



For the simple reason that it protects people to a certain extent if

someone decides make personal attacks on them in a newsgroup.



RADW alone saw quite a few attacks of that nature.







.

Nn

Nyctolops

in reply to ZC TGS on 07/07/2003 11:16 AM

08/07/2003 9:33 PM

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:53:44 CST, "J.J. Chambers"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Nyctolops" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:10:17 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've
>never
>> >understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.
>> >
>> In my case, I decided to use a nickname on Usenet because I have a
>> very common first name and a very common last name. In real life this
>> has led to my being mistaken for other people quite often. I wanted a
>> name that was just *mine*, so people would know it was me and not
>> someone else.
>
>Your last name isn't... McCoy, is it?
>
No, it isn't, and I am really glad about that.

Nyctolops
FAQ: http://www.otherleg.com/radwm-faq.html
radwm quotefile nominations: [email protected]

kK

[email protected] (Keith Hood)

in reply to ZC TGS on 07/07/2003 11:16 AM

07/07/2003 4:10 PM

>From: ZC TGS [email protected]
>Date: 7/7/03 6:16 PM GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:43:58 CST, "Devin L. Ganger"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:03:15 CST, Charles Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I think Shannon is absolutely right. He's done this before, he
>>> knows the rules and Usenet conventions, and it's his call.
>>
>>Usenet convention, at least in the Big 8 creation process, is to allow
>>posting nyms as "real names."
>
>I decided to look into the Big 8 rules that Devin mentions via Google
>and found the following at
>
>http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/big-eight.html
>
>---
>
>The precise definition of anonymous is at the discretion of the
>votetaker but should not be interpreted as requiring all voters to use
>their real name; votes from well-established pseudonyms should be
>accepted.
>
>---
>
>As you can see above votes from well established pseudonyms should be
>accepted.
>
>I've been on RADWM since since it started and before that on RADW
>since 1994 and tend to think that I am a regular poster with an
>established pseudonym. Therefore that should be accepted.
>

As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've never
understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.

What was done at the first moderator elections? That is what should have set
the precedent.

Keith



Associate, Society for Editors and Proofreaders
Member, Society of Indexers

BO

"Brett O'Callaghan"

in reply to ZC TGS on 07/07/2003 11:16 AM

08/07/2003 2:44 PM

ZC TGS <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Keith Hood)
>>As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've never
>>understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.
>For the simple reason that it protects people to a certain extent if
>someone decides make personal attacks on them in a newsgroup.

Possibly. But let's not get off track - what's to stop you using your
real name in a vote that only Shannon (a long term, respected member
of the community) will see?


Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

Nn

Nyctolops

in reply to ZC TGS on 07/07/2003 11:16 AM

08/07/2003 3:21 PM

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:10:17 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)
wrote:

>As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've never
>understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.
>
In my case, I decided to use a nickname on Usenet because I have a
very common first name and a very common last name. In real life this
has led to my being mistaken for other people quite often. I wanted a
name that was just *mine*, so people would know it was me and not
someone else.

Nyctolops
FAQ: http://www.otherleg.com/radwm-faq.html
radwm quotefile nominations: [email protected]

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to Nyctolops on 08/07/2003 3:21 PM

09/07/2003 1:32 AM



On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:15:33 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)

wrote:



>>From: Nyctolops [email protected]

>>Date: 7/8/03 10:21 PM GMT Daylight Time

>>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>>

>>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:10:17 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)

>>wrote:

>>

>>>As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've

>>never

>>>understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.

>>>

>>In my case, I decided to use a nickname on Usenet because I have a

>>very common first name and a very common last name. In real life this

>>has led to my being mistaken for other people quite often. I wanted a

>>name that was just *mine*, so people would know it was me and not

>>someone else.

>

>So if I started using your 'nym you'd change it because it wasn't just yours

>any more?





There's a huge difference in someone changing their name because it's

a common name that many people have and someone deliberately copying

someone elses name.

.

kK

[email protected] (Keith Hood)

in reply to ZC TGS on 09/07/2003 1:32 AM

09/07/2003 2:00 AM

>From: ZC TGS [email protected]
>Date: 7/9/03 8:32 AM GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:15:33 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)
>wrote:
>
>>>From: Nyctolops [email protected]
>>>Date: 7/8/03 10:21 PM GMT Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:10:17 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've
>>>never
>>>>understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.
>>>>
>>>In my case, I decided to use a nickname on Usenet because I have a
>>>very common first name and a very common last name. In real life this
>>>has led to my being mistaken for other people quite often. I wanted a
>>>name that was just *mine*, so people would know it was me and not
>>>someone else.
>>
>>So if I started using your 'nym you'd change it because it wasn't just yours
>>any more?
>
>There's a huge difference in someone changing their name because it's
>a common name that many people have and someone deliberately copying
>someone elses name.
>

And you'd be able to tell the difference how? What if both occured?

Ever wonder why my email address starts keithhood101? It's because [email protected]
is already taken (as well as several other numbered ones). Ever wonder why my
screen name is keythud? It's because Keith Hood was already taken. When I
started my business up I was asked if I was the same Keith Hood that had
previously gone bankrupt (needless to say I wasn't). When I recently joined a
Friends Reunited message board I was asked if I was the same Keith Hood that
had an older brother in the services (again I wasn't).

If I wanted to change my name (or use a 'nym) the above and several other
instances over the years would give me grounds of 'commonality'.

Keith



Associate, Society for Editors and Proofreaders
Member, Society of Indexers

Nn

Nyctolops

in reply to Nyctolops on 08/07/2003 3:21 PM

09/07/2003 9:01 PM

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:15:33 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)
wrote:

>>From: Nyctolops [email protected]
>>Date: 7/8/03 10:21 PM GMT Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:10:17 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've
>>never
>>>understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.
>>>
>>In my case, I decided to use a nickname on Usenet because I have a
>>very common first name and a very common last name. In real life this
>>has led to my being mistaken for other people quite often. I wanted a
>>name that was just *mine*, so people would know it was me and not
>>someone else.
>
>So if I started using your 'nym you'd change it because it wasn't just yours
>any more?

Nope. I have been using Nyctolops for over six years now and feel
that I have established myself sufficiently in the newsgroups I
frequent that no one else using my nickname will be mistaken for me or
I for them.

Nyctolops
FAQ: http://www.otherleg.com/radwm-faq.html
radwm quotefile nominations: [email protected]

kK

[email protected] (Keith Hood)

in reply to Nyctolops on 08/07/2003 3:21 PM

09/07/2003 1:15 AM

>From: Nyctolops [email protected]
>Date: 7/8/03 10:21 PM GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:10:17 CST, [email protected] (Keith Hood)
>wrote:
>
>>As Devin said it's only convention for group creation. Personally, I've
>never
>>understood why people want to hide behind 'nyms anyway.
>>
>In my case, I decided to use a nickname on Usenet because I have a
>very common first name and a very common last name. In real life this
>has led to my being mistaken for other people quite often. I wanted a
>name that was just *mine*, so people would know it was me and not
>someone else.

So if I started using your 'nym you'd change it because it wasn't just yours
any more?

Keith

Associate, Society for Editors and Proofreaders
Member, Society of Indexers

DD

Distant Dave

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

09/07/2003 4:21 AM

In message <[email protected]>,
Charles Martin <[email protected]> writes
>"Should be" and "must be" are two totally different things.
>
>Shannon made the rule. It's within his purview as votetaker to ignore
>Usenet convention if he sees a reason to do so.

That's fair enough - but I won't be voting because I have other
priorities.

--
Distant Dave <[email protected]>
http://www.distant.co.uk

CM

Charles Martin

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

09/07/2003 10:00 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Jim Vowles) wrote:

> The existing mods (less Charles) have chosen Shannon to handle
> vote-taking duties, per the styleguide.

Excuse me?

I'm still a mod, and I certainly DID approve Shannon as vote-taker,
along with the other mods. IIRC, Shannon was actually Devin's idea.

What I don't think people understand is that once the vote-taker is
selected, the mods have NOTHING repeat NOTHING to do with the election
process.

We don't see the nominations, we don't see the votes, we DON'T see the
names, we don't know the results any sooner than anyone else. We vote
(or not) just like everyone else. We have no influence on the vote-taker
and as far as I know he's not even in touch with any of us, nor does he
read our private mods-only discussions. We probably won't hear from him
at all until the results are announced.

The vote-taker's mandate is to run the election as he or she sees fit.
We selected Shannon because he has experience, is a long-time member of
the community who is recognised for his fairness and objectivity, and
because he volunteered to help out.

It's his show now (and has been since last month at least). We have
nothing to do with it at this point.

--
_Chas_
Moderator, rec.arts.drwho.moderated
FAQ, Charter & Styleguide: http://www.thecabal.org/~radwm/
Discussion group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/modish/
RADWM Quotefile: http://nitro9.earth.uni.edu/doctor/radwmquotes/index.html
Quotefile nominations: [email protected]

JC

"J.J. Chambers"

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

05/07/2003 5:18 PM

"Shannon Patrick Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Long ago in an English winter, ZC TGS said:
> > This I have issues with. Does FULL NAME mean the voters real name or
> > their USENET Nick Identity?
> >
> Full name -- something that could be verified if there was ever any
> question about, for example, somebody voting multiple times from different
> accounts.

How da heck do you "verify" someone's full name? Does this mean that more
than one person can vote from the same account? Either way what's to stop
somebody from making up full names out of the phone book or out of nowhere?
Your logic is totally flawed!

> > And if voting mean I have to give my real name then sorry but I don't
> > think that is acceptable.
> >
> None of this information will be made known to anyone but myself, so I'm
> not sure what you're worried about.

It's not smart to give out personal info to ANYBODY over the internet,
unless you know them well. There's a lot of psychos out there... I should
know!

> But if you really don't feel it's
> acceptable, then you've always got the option of not voting. That would be
> unfortunate, as I'd hope everyone interested in the moderation of the
> newsgroup would cast their votes, but it's your choice.

You're just setting yourself up for trouble here.

J.J.

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

07/07/2003 3:48 AM



On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:30:25 CST, [email protected] (Glenn Langford)

wrote:



>ZC TGS <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:46:25 CST, Martin Hoscik <[email protected]> wrote:

>>

>>

>> If anonymous posting is allowed and even encouraged, then the same

>> principal should be allowed for voting. Otherwise it's hypocritical

>> double standards.

>>

>> And there is also no way to 100percent prove someones real identity on

>> here either. So asking for a full name is useless.

>

>Shannon's just trying to ensure, as much as he possibly can, that

>votes are "legal". We wouldn't want to have a situation where an

>election was rigged by one or two people voting under a raft of

>pseudonyms now, would we? :-)





Vote rigging aside, how on earth would it be possible to confirm

someone identity on here? If I was to say my real name is Nick Smith,

how would you prove if I am telling the truth or not? Because I

certainly would not be willing to hand over any legal documentation

because of data protection, etc.





.

jJ

[email protected] (Jim Vowles)

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

09/07/2003 7:06 AM

"Devin L. Ganger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:03:15 CST, Charles Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I think Shannon is absolutely right. He's done this before, he
> > knows the rules and Usenet conventions, and it's his call.
>
> Usenet convention, at least in the Big 8 creation process, is to allow
> posting nyms as "real names."

That's as may be, but given the massive fraud attempted by certain
people in the creation of this group, it would seem horribly unwise to
omit precautions to prevent that from happening again.

kK

[email protected] (Keith Hood)

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

04/07/2003 1:27 AM

>Full Name: Keith Hood
>E-mail address: [email protected]
>
>Candidate: David Brider
>Vote: NO
>
>Candidate: Andy K. Kitching
>Vote: NO
>
>Candidate: Glenn Langford
>Vote: YES
>
>Candidate: Karen Jo Nyctolops
>Vote: YES
>
>Candidate: Brett O'Callaghan
>Vote: YES
>
>============================= end of ballot ============================



Associate, Society for Editors and Proofreaders
Member, Society of Indexers

SP

Shannon Patrick Sullivan

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

04/07/2003 7:11 AM

Just to clarify, ballots *must* be e-mailed to me at the address listed in
the original post. Ballots posted here, on modish, or anywhere else will
be ignored.

(So please re-send your votes to me in order for them to be counted,
Keith.)

Thanks,
Shannon

--
| Shannon Patrick Sullivan | [email protected] |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
/ Doctor Who: A Brief History of Time (Travel) go.to/drwho-history \
\__ We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars __/

ZT

ZC TGS

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

05/07/2003 3:44 PM



On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:17:45 CST, Shannon Patrick Sullivan

<[email protected]> wrote:





>* Ballots must be e-mailed from a VALID e-mail address and must include

>the FULL NAME of the voter.



This I have issues with. Does FULL NAME mean the voters real name or

their USENET Nick Identity?



I and others use a nick on here as an identity, as is commone practice

on many newsgroups.



And if voting mean I have to give my real name then sorry but I don't

think that is acceptable.



.

SP

Shannon Patrick Sullivan

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

05/07/2003 5:25 PM

Long ago in an English winter, ZC TGS said:
> So what's stopping me from lying about my name? You don't know my real
> name so how do you verify it?
>
Because proof can be requested if there is cause for doubt.

> What's the point having a newsgroup where people can be anonymous and
> well behaved and active posters, yet then stop them from voting
> because they don't use their real name?
>
Because, having considerable experience at this sort of thing, I know that
it is inadvisable not to have some sort of validation in a balloting
process -- even if the likelihood of it being needed is very small.

>> But if you really don't feel it's
>>acceptable, then you've always got the option of not voting.
>
> Not voting is not an acceptable option either. It's a denial of a
> right.
>
Nobody's rights are being denied -- if you want to vote, use your full
name. It's very simple.

In any case, I'm not debating this. If you don't like it, e-mail the mods
and ask them to make a ruling. If they tell me to not bother with full
names, then I won't bother with full names.

Shannon

--
| Shannon Patrick Sullivan | [email protected] |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
/ Doctor Who: A Brief History of Time (Travel) go.to/drwho-history \
\__ We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars __/

DD

Distant Dave

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

10/07/2003 12:15 PM

In message <[email protected]>, Shannon Patrick Sullivan
<[email protected]> writes
>Long ago in an English winter, Distant Dave said:
>> That's fair enough - but I won't be voting because I have other
>> priorities.
>
>In case anyone missed my earlier post, I've already said that I'll relax
>the "Full Name" requirement in the case of well-established nicknames;
>these will be adjudged on a case-by-case basis.
>
>Shannon

Oh, all right go on then :)

--
Distant Dave

JC

"J.J. Chambers"

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

05/07/2003 5:45 PM

"Shannon Patrick Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Long ago in an English winter, ZC TGS said:
> > So what's stopping me from lying about my name? You don't know my real
> > name so how do you verify it?
> >
> Because proof can be requested if there is cause for doubt.

What kind of proof?

> > What's the point having a newsgroup where people can be anonymous and
> > well behaved and active posters, yet then stop them from voting
> > because they don't use their real name?
> >
> Because, having considerable experience at this sort of thing, I know that
> it is inadvisable not to have some sort of validation in a balloting
> process -- even if the likelihood of it being needed is very small.

Hey!

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask for a full name ONLY IF there was a
question about a particular ballot or ballots?

Nah, I guess that would make too much sense, huh?

<sign>

J.J.

DL

"Devin L. Ganger"

in reply to Shannon Patrick Sullivan on 03/07/2003 10:17 AM

07/07/2003 10:43 AM

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:03:15 CST, Charles Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> FWIW, I think Shannon is absolutely right. He's done this before, he
> knows the rules and Usenet conventions, and it's his call.

Usenet convention, at least in the Big 8 creation process, is to allow
posting nyms as "real names."

--
Devin L. Ganger <[email protected]>
"Aikido is based around the central precept of letting an attack take its
natural course. You, of course, don't want to impede that natural flow
by being in its way." -- overheard on the PyraMOO


You’ve reached the end of replies