----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 6:36 PM Subject: RE: test
> > -----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. That makes sense. So, is there a limit on repetative dinging of person A by person B? That would make sense >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. That makes sense, but it should be an asymptotic, not a linear function, IMHO. That is to day, 50 posts a day shouldn't allow you 50 dings a week on Ms. X, while 1 post a day allows you 1. There are various ways of handling this, and if automated they could be fancy functions. :-) I'd be happy to volunteer a function if it could be plugged in easily (for you) and if you could tell me the general flavor of function you would desire. > > 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. That makes sense. I support the idea of dings because it allows the community to slow down mail bombs, quiet flame wars, etc. without throwing anyone off. > > 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. That wouldn't be enough, of course. But, it would not be hard for list owners to not notice 20 new accounts that speak with one voice. >>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. Since we have a list member who has mail bombed, and has threatened lawsuits, and has, perhaps in jest, threatened violence, I think that is reasonable. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
