The run-off poll between the top two selections would be a worthwhile idea.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Lotz [SMTP:Dave_Lotz@m...]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 11:17 PM
> To: BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [BRHSlist] Commercial Postings on BRHSlist
>
> Excellent post...let's hear more feedback!
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jonathanharris@e... [mailto:jonathanharris@e...]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:13 PM
> To: BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Commercial Postings on BRHSlist
>
>
> Dave and List --
>
> Thanks for taking this poll. I'm all in favor of polls and of majority
> rule, but a little more clarification and maybe some discussion/debate
> might help us make a better decision. (I just voted but felt I did so in
> brute ignorance.... Since it says we can change our votes right up to the
> cut-off date, maybe it's not too late.)
>
> In the four months I've been a subscriber, I've felt able to get plenty of
> commercial information off both the list and the BRHS web site, through
> its
> Modelers Depot. Between those two sources, I've found Dave's Q Connection,
> Eric Mumper's covered hoppers, news of the re-publication of "Burlington
> in
> Transition" and "Waycars...." I've also seen Railpub notices, useful
> information from Jim's Junction, and even got an update from CIL in
> response to my somewhat cynical posting last month about the prognosis for
> their O-3s.
>
> How would any of this change if more/fewer commercial postings were
> allowed? What would "commercial" postings look like? Can someone point to
> an example?
>
> I also am a little concerned about how votes will be tallied in this poll.
> A person who votes for "no postings," for instance, would probably be
> happier (as a 2nd choice) with a policy allowing a select subset ("only
> approved by list moderator" or "only Burlington-related") than with a
> policy of unrestricted postings. Yet if those three choices ("none,
> "moderator-approved only" and "Burlington only") each garnered 20% of the
> vote while "unrestricted" received 25%, "unrestricted" presumably would
> win. Maybe there should be a run-off between the top two vote-getters to
> minimize the possibility of such distortions. That way, whatever wins will
> have at least 50% approval.
>
> If we do allow (more) commercial postings, I would only ask that we
> observe
> the basic rules of common courtesy and common sense: that our moderator
> (whom I completely trust) be open and even-handed; that there be some
> filter to prevent an individual or company from saturation bombing or
> posting the same information over and over; that we demand rigorous
> standards of business ethics for those who offer goods or services through
> these posts; and that we always remain open to tweaking or revising
> whatever policy we adopt if a significant number among us feel it is not
> working.
>
> Jonathan
> --------------
>
> >In light of recent "commercial" postings, we have reviewed the
> YahooGroups
> >Terms of Service (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/) to double check on
> the
> >restrictions for making commercial postings on the BRHSlist. The section
> >that strictly prohibited selling has been modified to include only SPAM
> type
> >solicitations. Therefore, we are no longer under those restrictions.
> >Now, however, we have a decision to make...what advertising/commercial
> >selling do we want to allow on the list?
> >You've already been notified that we have created a poll on the BRHSlist
> >YahooGroups page where you may voice your opinion. The poll will be open
> >until December 12, at which time the results will be emailed to everyone
> on
> >the list and the majority will rule.
> >Thanks for your feedback.
> >Dave Lotz
> >BRHS Archives
> >BRHSlist Owner
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
|