|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 367 responses total. |
mta
|
|
response 194 of 367:
| 
Mar 4 01:43 UTC 1997 |
No, actually I wasn't about to ask you to leave. I was about to ask you about
your reasoning in still being here if GREX is so unimportant and
uninteresting? That statement simply made no sense to me. A lot of the rest
has made a great deal of sense. Some I even agreed with wholheartedly.
(Maybe I'm not alone in my "overly defensiveness" if you only saw an
invitation to leave where I saw a pointer to puzzling logic.) <g>
|
jenna
|
|
response 195 of 367:
|
Mar 4 02:17 UTC 1997 |
unimportant in the universe and unimportant to brighn are not the same thing,
last
I checked.
|
babozita
|
|
response 196 of 367:
|
Mar 4 03:26 UTC 1997 |
Sorry, Misti. I was in a pissy mood a few hours ago. The MOTD for tomorrow
will review WHY I'm in a somewhat pissy mood today. *smirk*
Grex is important to me. I just don't think that most people who wander by
on the Web will give two shits less about it. I think that many people who
wind up staying on Grex iitially do so because they went through the effort
of creating an account, they might as well stay a week or so to see if it's
cool. No account creation, no motivation to stay. I think that there are more
people who stay because they've done the work of creating an account, then
decide they like it, then there are people who will skim past Grex anonymously
then come back with piqued curiosity. That's why I think an advertisement
would be more effective than anonymous reading: many more people will
anonymously read once, then forget Grex even exists.
Did that make sense? If not, I'll rephrase it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 197 of 367:
|
Mar 4 06:18 UTC 1997 |
Your argument is lost in the 14,000 users that ran newuser and still
do not appear to care about the Grex community. Maintaining those 14,000
accounts tasks resources. Perhaps it is better that a lot more unsupportive
visitors won't create accounts and primarily the supportive will.
|
robh
|
|
response 198 of 367:
|
Mar 4 07:45 UTC 1997 |
If we didn't delete accounts that were inactive for three months,
I might agree with that sentiment. But since we do, I don't.
|
babozita
|
|
response 199 of 367:
|
Mar 4 14:07 UTC 1997 |
#197. Rane, maybe you should go to the doctor for tha wax in your ears.
Have I not said that I voted yes on theproposal?
Have I not said that the proposal will HELP grex?
You have just told me exactly WHY i reasoned that the proposal is a good
thing, then told me that my argument is bad, when it has caused me to come
to the same conclusion you have come to.
Geez, Rane, normally you strike me as a reasonably intelligent fellow.
|
pfv
|
|
response 200 of 367:
|
Mar 4 14:24 UTC 1997 |
Hehehe.. Too funny..
You think it's slow now..? Just wait.
A lot of those accounts can't possibly be using the confs, and
I'd wager they are here primarily for mail..
I guess the "ponder" is of how many of those accounts pony up
any sort of "support", and I do not mean telling all of their
friends, teachers or whatever about the free email.
*Shrug* You have a Tiger By The Tail - have fun with it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 201 of 367:
|
Mar 4 16:40 UTC 1997 |
Paul, in #183 you said you voted for this proposal in order to spite Grex -
and so that "this thing explode and watch egg splatter all over Mary Remmers
face" - hardly intelligent objectives.
I'm not sure I understand #198 - I thought that we had 14,000 current, active,
users, who will not be affected by the 3-month rule, but who do not support
Grex conferencing (or the organization). I may have misunderstood when that
number was put forward. How many users are there that do not support
conferencing or the system?
|
babozita
|
|
response 202 of 367:
|
Mar 4 19:35 UTC 1997 |
No, in order to spite Mary Remmers, Rane. And I was playing. Sheesh.=}
Ahem. To clarify for the humor-impaired:
I believe the result of this proposal will be to decrease the number of people
running newuser, and ultimately to decrease the number of new users accrued.
I believe that the new users who are accrued will be of a higher qulaity
overall (by higher quality I mean, more participatory in conferences, and/or
less malicious in Party and other communication fora). I find it ironic that
the stated purpose of this motion is to increase new user accrual overall,
since it will have a negative effect. If my predictions are correct, I will
not refrain from showing joy at Mary Remmers' expense, because I don't like
her. It will be difficult, though, to demonstrate an actual effect (unless
it's very very significant), and so my joy will most likely take place solely
in hypothetical realms. I shall seek to find other ways to be joyful in life.
It's too bad, Rane, that after all your years you have yet to obtain what so
many of us obtain early on, a sense of humor and sarcasm. I can envision you
as the pater in Name of the Rose, poisoning the pages of the Comedia so
theother monks die if they read it.
For the humor-impaired: the previous paragraph was meant as a friendly barb,
not an overt insult. I have spent the better part of a year as a belligerrent
twit. I am using the occasion of my 29th birthday to return to my Devil's
Advocate, Devil-May-Care, impish self.
Enough disclaimers, kids? =}
|
tsty
|
|
response 203 of 367:
|
Mar 4 19:55 UTC 1997 |
voting 'no' on dumping the whole of grex 'out there' *and* then
following that with a vote of 'yes' to put the crafted intro.cf 'out there'
would achieve the pro arguments, diminish the con arguments and
maintain whtever system-wide peace we still have.
|
babozita
|
|
response 204 of 367:
|
Mar 4 20:20 UTC 1997 |
100% agreed, Tsty.
Make a motion before voting closes on this motion and repeat that suggestion
in your motion item.
|
richard
|
|
response 205 of 367:
|
Mar 4 22:10 UTC 1997 |
brighn, yourloine of thinking is not logical...if more people use grex, in
any way, more users will eventually run newuser.
I hope Mary's proposal is the last word on this issue..even *I* am sick of
this debate (and with me that takes some doing) Lets just do it, see how it
works, and if someone doesnt lke it after a few months, then make a proposal
to revise the policy.
|
nsiddall
|
|
response 206 of 367:
|
Mar 4 23:16 UTC 1997 |
Laughing out loud, Richard! You all sound extremely reasonable for the
moment. I agree, that doing this with just one conference, on an experimental
basis, seems like a mild and sensible approach. Let's discuss it a bit, and
make sure no one objects to that--but see if we can avoid votes, and bitter
arguments, and subcommittees and the supreme court, hey? How about a
discussion item for this?
|
richard
|
|
response 207 of 367:
|
Mar 5 03:00 UTC 1997 |
doing it with one conf even on an experimental basis serves no purpose. It
is only a way of avoiding the issue of mary's proposal for a while longer,
which is whetherb unregistered reading is is going to be available n all
confs. The previous vote was the defining moment in that debate. Having
unregistered reading in any variation of selected confs was emphaticaly
rejected. the only question now is all or none. The previous respojnses
and threats to make further proposals, has the effect of showing certain
people with their heads in the sand. Unregistered reading will either be
available universaly or not at all. Period. No subsequent votes are
going to change that sentiment.,
|
babozita
|
|
response 208 of 367:
|
Mar 5 14:18 UTC 1997 |
O.k., Richard, slowly then.
Let's say a BBS which requires one to run a free registration program attracts
100 people a day. Of those, 75% feel compelled merely by the fact that they've
spent 15 minutes running newuser to come back a few times. Of those, 33%
decide they like Grex enough to stay, but another 33% decide to screw around
since they've got this account to screw around on.
Results: 25 "quality" users, 25 "malicious" users
Let's say a BBS which allows guest access attracts 200 people a day. Of those,
only 25% are interested enough to run newuser a few days later. Of those, 90%
come back a few more times. 75% ultimately decide to stay, 5/6ths of whom
think Grex is wonderful and 1/6 of whom decide to screw around.
Results: 25 "wqulaity" users, 5 "malicious user
the "quality" user accrual rate is the same, the "malicious" user accrual rate
is lower. I honestly don't think that this will increase "quality" user
accrual rate, I think it will decrese "malicious" user accrual rate (i.e.,
it will keep the "riff-raff" out, to a degree).
these numbers are hypothetical, of course, but I don't think they're
unreasonable.
Math:
100 * .75 = 75. 75 * .33 = 25.
200 * .25 = 50. 50 * .90 = 40. 40 * .75 = 30. 30 * 1/6 = 5; 30 * 5/6 = 25
All right, cucumber?
|
richard
|
|
response 209 of 367:
|
Mar 5 19:25 UTC 1997 |
nope, your math is flawed...I dont know where you get this idea that 75% of
people who run newuser come back. the percentage is MUCH lower than that.
All you have to do is look at the average number of login reaps grex does
daily to figure that out. You have no basis theefore for aying the use
accrual rate would be the same. IN fact once this proposal ins implemented
and has had time to be fully utilized, it will bring many more users in, than
the current setup, therefore by simple math, increasing the aqccrual rate.
Maybe it wont increase it percentage wise, there is noway to tell. But in
terms of hard numbers, it is bound to.
|
pfv
|
|
response 210 of 367:
|
Mar 5 20:59 UTC 1997 |
Always counter numbers with numbers.. And better logic..
BTW, nice low Kerouac Rating there - thanks ;-)
hmm... How many Kerouacs per hour to light a 60 watt bulb..?
(Anyone have a handy conversion? ;-)
|
raven
|
|
response 211 of 367:
|
Mar 5 21:45 UTC 1997 |
re # 210 Gee you can use cucumbers to run light bulbs. Is that like the
battery you make in grade school with a lemon? :-)
<set drift=off>
|
adbarr
|
|
response 212 of 367:
|
Mar 5 22:31 UTC 1997 |
If the proposed change is imlemented, monitored, and evaluated, can't we then
make a judgement. Some opinions may be validated and others discredited.
Until then, I would much prefer to not see name-calling. This is an
experiment, is it not? Why not wait until the results are clear, then we can
indulge in the ITYS and all the rest. Then again it might help, or it might
be neutral and the proponets will be validated, at least a little. I did not
see anything in the proposal that said it could not be modified or elimnated
in the future. I doubt that any harm will be permanent, if there is any harm.
|
remmers
|
|
response 213 of 367:
|
Mar 5 23:38 UTC 1997 |
Much to my chagrin, I'm afraid I have to report an error on my
part. When I announced the closing date for the vote as March
12, that allowed 14 days for the vote. It should have been 10
days. This was not intentional; I simply confused the length of
time allowed for the discussion of a proposal and the length of
time for voting on a proposal, and used the former in setting
the closing date of the vote instead of the latter. So the close
of voting *should* have been set for March 8, four days earlier
than the announced date of March 12.
Apparently nobody caught this, myself included, until today,
when Mary noticed it and called it to my attention. Not that I'm
blaming anybody but myself -- it was my responsibility to
announce the time period for the voting correctly.
It is now March 5. To change the voting deadline to March 8 at
this late date seems to me inappropriate and unfair, since the
March 12 date has been well-publicized in this item, in the vote
program, and elsewhere by an agent of Grex (i.e. me). People
might not log in and be aware that they have less time than they
thought they did to cast a ballot.
I think that the least disruptive and fairest thing to do would
be to stick with the announced closing date of March 12. If the
announced date had allowed *less* than 10 voting days, this of
course would be inappropriate and the voting period would have to
be extended to meet the bylaw requirement of 10 days. But leaving
the closing date at March 12 will allow 10 days and also give
people the time that they were told they'd have to cast a ballot.
The alternative would be to scratch this vote and start over,
notifying eligible voting members by email that this was being
done and indicating that they should vote again. But I'm not sure
that such a re-vote is necessary or helpful.
My apologies for the mixup.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 214 of 367:
|
Mar 5 23:53 UTC 1997 |
If you extend the voting period, I also think it would be important to
note that people's votes who have paid for Grex membership through
March 8th, but not through March 12th (if there are any) that
their/those(if any) particular votes should not be discounted.
|
richard
|
|
response 215 of 367:
|
Mar 5 23:56 UTC 1997 |
question: what hapens if thevote is a tie? (it could happen statisitcally)
Does Valerie as president og rex get to then cast s a second vote as the
tiebreaker to decide this?
|
aruba
|
|
response 216 of 367:
|
Mar 6 00:00 UTC 1997 |
I agree John - let the vote go until the 12th. Re #214: All Grex memberships
expire either at the end of the month or on the 15th of the month, so there's
no problem there.
|
mta
|
|
response 217 of 367:
|
Mar 6 00:04 UTC 1997 |
Thanks, John, but I think this a really, really minor. ;)
|
dpc
|
|
response 218 of 367:
|
Mar 6 01:08 UTC 1997 |
Unfortunate mistake. Let's hope the vote isn't close enuf for the
losers to quibble that the votes cast in the extended period made
the difference.
|