> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-bounces@;mccmedia.com]On > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk
... > >Make that "a *self*-moderated list." > > 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. Prevention of abuse is the reason that the dinger also gets some points. Incessant dinging as you describe will make it very difficult to participate. The idea is that the real effects of dinging are felt when a number of people concur and ding the same individual. Now that I think about it, for the system to work effectively, people should be able to ding to the extent that they actively participate. Lurkers, like anonymous dingers, would have to have very limited power to ding, since they'd have nothing to lose. > 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). Our aim is to find a set of rules, or heuristics, that prevent abuse -- not necessarily the possibility of abuse, but certainly from a practical standpoint. Creating multiple accounts won't work unless the abuser is very, very patient and diligent, since the person will have to actively participate from those accounts. Just as brand-new subscribers can't immediately post to the list (such postings are automatically moderated), brand-new accounts won't be able to ding. > 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. I'm sure you do... but I don't think transparency need be carried that far, necessarily. Anonymity has value, as long as its power is strictly limited. For example, the heuristics could assure that even if *everyone* actively involved in the list dinged the same person anonymously, the effect would still be relatively minimal. Remember, we're not talking about blocking messages, just delaying them. It is quite literally a moderating effect. The fact is, we already tolerate near-anonymity from subscribers who only identify themselves with pseudonyms, rather than their legal names. I imagine that if we had a member who was threatening retribution for dinging (mail-bombing, lawsuits, etc.), anonymity might prove the only means of bringing some order. Maybe not necessary, though. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
