[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
BANNED AT LIBERTYPOST
Title: Clarification requested if needed
To: tpaine Subject: Clarification requested if needed >> sysadmin-LP -- It has come to light that I may have misinterpreted some part of your offer. If so this was not intentional on my part, I was piecing together parts of several emails to arrive at a cogent description of the entire package.
----- I asked you in my 'offer' emails to post them at LP, because you refused to allow me to comment there. --- Instead, you pieced together parts, which in my opinion led to an non cogent description of the entire email exchange. >> Information short, what I gathered from your emails and what I have attempted to represent: --- Your accepting ownership of LP is contingent on the following conditions: --- 1. If 25% or more of LP active users indicate they do not want you as owner, (that is, do not vote for you) the offer is withdrawn and you do not accept ownership. (This logically translates to 75% approval. A vote for another option is counted toward the 25% figure.) ---- 2. You will not take ownership until a suitable moderator is selected with a 75% approval rate from LP members. --- (If you have been following the discussion thread on LP of course you already know this but I wanted to put it on the table as accurately as possible.) ------- I have been attempting (like others) to follow your comments on those threads, and and like the others, I find them confusing. Why don't you just post our original email exchange, in its entirety, and then try to explain why you decided to make this a complicated four choice election instead of simply asking the members if they wanted me as an owner? ----- If 25 individuals had voted no, that would have been the end of it for me. >> If I am mistaken in any of this please provide a precise statement of the contingencies which I will post in its entirety on your behalf. If there are any significant errors in my reporting of your offer I will publicly apologize for my error in interpretation and take whatever action is necessary to insure a fair vote, including invalidation of current votes and starting the process over if it comes to that. Despite our differences you made a bona fide offer and it is my desire to give you a fair shake. ------ sysadmin posted on 2015-01-12 9:11:42 ET -------- The way you put on a four part 'election' did not make it a fair shake for anyone, imho. --- But it did indicate that my ownership of the site was not acceptable for at least 25 out of the 100 or so active members. So be it... Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 50. Good Lord. For being such a massive windbag, you can't effectively communicate a simple point. Try paring down your novel by about 10,000 characters. Simplicity can be your friend. LP is dead anyway. All of your goofball pals will be over here soon laying this place to waste. Kind of funny that you were such a poor choice the place votes to commit Hari-Kari rather than have you in charge.
#19. To: Nexus6 (#18) Kind of funny that you were such a poor choice the place votes to commit Hari-Kari rather than have you in charge. Quit lying, liar.
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#19) Neil --- With 83 comments posted, I count 43 voters with the following breakdown. TPaine: 23 Perciles: 6 Status Quo: 24 Shutdown: 11
With supposedly 64? votes counted, 11 were for Hari-Kari. Hardly a consensus.
#49. To: tpaine, Fred Mertz, Pinguinite, hondo68, A K A Stone (#21) http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36973&Disp=21#C21
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#19) With 84 comments and the thread locked, I count 64 votes with only 45 discrete individuals participating. Of those, only 7 stated a first preference of shutting down the site. If status quo/sysadmin were not an actual choice (it seems it was not), then a vastly different choice would have been faced, tpaine, Pericles, or shut down LP. That breakdown of 36 clear first preferences is: 14 -- tpaine As for the "approval" vote, some voters cast their approval in order of preference and others did not. Some votes, if they be votes, are unclear. The vote is a mess and the only thing clear is that the voters were not clear about the process. That "approval" breakdown is: 20 -- tpaine The 14 people who listed a shutdown as one of their choices and the post number. #4, domer #41, GeorgiaConservative #73, Neil McIver One instruction for the process, on the VOTING thread was:
Please limit your response to this post to a single line containing one of the following options: NOTE ON THE "APPROVAL VOTE" SYSTEM. That was discussed on a different DISCUSSION thread and never mentioned on the VOTING thread. http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=350039&Disp=167#C167
#167. To: Neil McIver (#164) http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=350039&Disp=174#C174
#174. To: sysadmin (#167) http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=350039&Disp=175#C175
#175. To: Neil McIver (#174) http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=350039&Disp=186#C186
#186. To: Neil McIver (#174) People who followed the instruction on the VOTING thread got one vote for one choice. People who chose to adopt what Neil mentioned on another thread cast as many as four choices. The first vote was recorded at 2015-01-10, 13:48:59 ET. Neil McIver's suggestion to use the "approval" system was recorded at 2015-01-10 13:51:31 ET, shortly after voting had commenced. sysadmin's coment was recorded at 2015-01-10 18:52:13 ET, about five hours after voting commenced and 56 posts were already on what would be an 84 post thread. Where a voter cast a vote of "1 or 3, in that order," are they counted as equal approval of 1 and 3, or as a preference for 1? At #17, JTIDSGUY wrote:
So just who decided that these were the only choices? I would rather stick a pin in my eye than have pericles in charge of anything. tpaine is just a bit less annoying. SYSADMIN has been doing an ok job. Raise some money to keep the doors open and look at this matter again later. Maybe the new head cheese can buy an Olive Garden in a couple of years. Maybe that equates to #3 status quo, or not. At #55, sysadmin indicated he inserted a vote by tpaine for tpaine. I count 64 total "votes" by 45 people, including tpaine. There are several similar to #76:
3,1,2,4 All four choices are listed in preference order. Is this a vote of approval for each choice or one vote of disapproval for a shutdown? That counts as four votes if approval is counted. Such counting provides my total of 64. Perhaps it should be counted as approval for 3, 2, and 1. At #13, AuntB posted:
I haven't been around consistently enough to have a vote, but I hope the place continues. I did not stretch this non-vote to three votes, one approval each for 1, 2, and 3. I did not construe a desire that the place continues to be an approval of tpaine, Pericles, and/or sysadmin. At #27, stoner posted:
1. tpaine Is that 1 or 3, or just 1? I counted it as approval of 1 and 3. If counted just for tpaine, then the total is 63 votes and one less for sysadmin. At #35, JustUsealittleBrainPower stated:
3 without a doubt. Tpaine is okay.... I counted this as approval of 1 and 3. At #57, TooConservative recorded all four choices. At #76, listener recorded all four choices. At #78, medicalmalcontent recorded all four choices. The last listed choice of #57, 76, 78 was to shut down. Is this three votes to approve shutting down the site? The 45 voters and the post number of their recorded votes. 01 -- IRTorqued 07 -- Fibr Dog 19 -- SOD 26 -- cranky 35 -- JustUsealittleBrainPower 41 -- GeorgiaConservative 62 -- UaDeaghaidh 71 -- Molon Labe 78 -- medicalmalcontent ** -- tpaine (sysadmin at #55 stated he recorded a vote by tpaine for tpaine)
#50. To: nolu chan (#49) #57, TooConservative I shouldn't have even included shutdown as an option. I never wanted LP to shutdown. Maybe over the long run, it will prove to be for the best but that was not my wish.
Replies to Comment # 50. #54. To: TooConservative (#50) I shouldn't have even included shutdown as an option. I never wanted LP to shutdown. That is the way I took the intent of these votes. There never should have been an "approval" vote unclearly implemented on another thread hours after voting started. It needed far more explanation, and it needed to be explained on the VOTING thread, prior to voting. If sysadmin was not a real option, that should not have been offered. I only see seven people come out and say shut it down.
#58. To: TooConservative (#50) I shouldn't have even included shutdown as an option. I never wanted LP to shutdown. Maybe over the long run, it will prove to be for the best but that was not my wish.
It's really a moot point now. Regardless of what various people proposed in threads, it is obvious that sysadmin had grown quite tired of dealing with the site and its' denizens. It was kind of him to keep it up for as long as he did so that people could arrange to migrate or at least say their farewells.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 50. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|