--- Erik Reuter wrote: > Julia Thompson wrote: > > non-anonymous ding = 0.1 ding (because it > *should* cost you to ding someone) > > anonymous ding = 0.3 ding (because it should > cost you more to be anonymous)
> ...Anyway, I will say that those numbers are MUCH > too low. It shouldn't be cheap to impose your > opinion on others, and > it should be VERY expensive to impose it > anonymously. When there is > no judge or jury, the sacrifice made by the > vigilante should be AT LEAST > as much as the punishment suffered by the > "misbehaver". > > So, if dinging must be implemented (which I'm not > sure is a good idea but > if people want to try it), I suggest: > > transparent ding = 2 dings > anonymous ding = 10 dings Why, if the 'vigilante's' sacrifice is to be "at least" as much as the 'offender', would a transparent ding get TWO demerits? Wouldn't _one_ be at least as much? >:o An anonymous dinger should certainly have a higher price to 'pay' also (though I'm not sure that _ten_ dings is fair either). Anyone who abuses a 'ding' system should censured strongly (banned from the list for a specified time? Denied the option to ever use the 'ding' system again?). Debbi who thinks it's too bad that 'community shunning' rather than an 'official demerit' hasn't worked __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
