And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Nick Andrew with some words for
aus.net.news:

(Victor Sack) writes:
}
}>Brett Mount > wrote:

<snip>

}>> I'm unsure of the reasoning behind it- that may be a question better
}>> directed to Mr Andrews.
}
}Andrew, not Andrews.

You have my apologies- that's what comes of not reading carefully enough!

<snip>

}Usually the proposer of a vote is interested in getting the vote passed.
}These are the people most likely to "advertise" a way to vote YES only.
}We haven't had any situation yet where somebody who is not the proponent
}takes it upon themselves to promote failing a group vote.
}
}I want to move the voting system to the website as soon as I can get the
}code written; there will be one button for YES and one button for NO,
}so I expect the issue will disappear.

Being the reactionary that I am, I wonder about people who have usenet but
not Web access, but then I suspect the figures for them are probably in
single digits worldwide (the last example I know of became web enabled a
few weeks ago).

I've no doubt you've already considered issues of voter verification, and
the wisdom of web based structures for usenet- there's been a few
interesting arguments there. The different promoting rules in aus.* should
make the latter less of an issue anyway.

--
Brett

"I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous
I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis"