At 13:19 26-10-2002 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
I must respectfully disagree with you, at least in part. Sure, the dinging system might prevent people from making a major nuisance of themselves. However, incessant dinging of person #1 by person #2 may very well cause person #1 to become so fed up with it that s/he gives up posting altogether, be it on a particular topic or on every topic. In that case, person #2 has effectively turned the list into a moderated one, at least for person #1.> And finally, this whole dinging system in the setup you describe sounds > to me like a first step towards this list becoming a moderated list.Make that "a *self*-moderated list."
I am not saying this *will* happen, but the dinging system does give a person the *opportunity* to abuse the system.
I think a full record of who has dinged whom how many times should be available to everyone. That way, everyone will be able to recognise when someone appears to be abusing the system, which in turn might *prevent* people from abusing the system (because they *know* they will get caught).Perhaps anonymity of dingers and dingees, is, indeed bad.
I must once again respectfully disagree. Anonymous dings, no matter the value they are given, go against the idea of transparency. If someone dings me, I want to know who did it.Maybe anonymous dings should be available, but count, far, far less than non-anonymous dings.
Jeroen "Shields up! Red alert!" van Baardwijk
__________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
