On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:41:32PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: > The "possible feature" that has most folks here worried is discussion > of "eviling" or whatever we decide to call it (I would rather call > it "dinging"). It's a discussion I've seen on other lists; I don't > remember specifically if we've talked about it here or not. One > common version is that anyone can give anyone else an "evil" point (or > a Ding point), but if you give one out, you also receive one tenth of > a point. After a certain amount of points, you can't post to the list > for a certain amount of time.
Were any solutions proposed to the problem Jeroen brought up, about people not playing by the rules? What if they open a number of hotmail, yahoo, etc. email accounts and use them to evil people? > In fact, let's discuss this now. If someone violates a list rule, > should we: 1) Talk about it on-list searching for consensus > concerning what to do about it (pro: democracy in action, transparency > -- con: this hasn't worked well in the recent past, there's little > reason to believe it will work better in the future) I think it has worked well in the past. Perhaps there wasn't sufficient reason to take action so far? > 2) Have a point system with specific penalties for specific point > accumulations (pro: everyone knows the penalties in advance, spelled > out clearly -- con: tyrrany of the majority) Con: who assigns the points? Can it be done without possibility of cheating? > 3) Have a sacrifice system where 2 or 3 or 5 people (number > negotiable) could agree to have themselves banned from posting for a > week in exchange for getting the person they see as the wrong-doer > being banned for the same time-frame (pro: will really make people > think long and hard before deciding to sacrifice -- con: tyrrany of > the majority, tyrrany of the lurkers ;-) Same con as above. > 4) Have a "Brin-L Action Disciplinary Committee (BAD Committee)" > (chosen by vote of the list membership) who has the ultimate authority > and responsibility to pass judgement on their fellow list-members' > actions (pro: no endless online debating -- con: tyrrany of the > minority, possible lack of transparency) Seems heavy handed to me. But it might be workable. Sort of like a Supreme Court of Brin-L. > 6) No repercussions for *anything* said or done on Brin-L (pro: > completely freewheeling discussion -- con: loss of civility causing > possible/probable loss of some list members) Well, I would make an exception for clear spam. If there were no dissenters (except the spammer, of course) to a proposal that someone be banned for posting spam (if someone was posting commerical advertisements or binaries repeatedly, for example) then I would endorse this #6 as my favorite. However, from what I have read some people get too upset to ignore some posts that they find bothersome, and don't have the time or inclination to set up software to ignore it for them. Therefore, a compromise occurs to me. Why not have *BOTH* a filtered and non-filtered list. brin-l-f would be filtered in whatever way a group of like-minded people think best (or you could even have brin-l-f1, brin-l-f2, etc.), while brin-l would be unfiltered. People can subscribe to whatever list they like. In case that wasn't clear, another way of saying it is that the messages in brin-l-f would be a subset of the messages in brin-l, and brin-l would be a superset of brin-l-f. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
