----- Original Message ----- From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 11:08 AM Subject: Re: test
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:17 AM > > Subject: RE: test > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:brin-l-bounces@;mccmedia.com]On > > > > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > Sounds like an awful lot of work for something that is not really > > useful, > > > > not really complies with IAAMOAC, and goes against David Brin's wish > > that > > > > this list be unmoderated. > > > > > > David Brin *suggested* the system. > > > > *touche* > > > > I know I would never use DB to support my position without talking to him > > first; especially when fussing at someone who has lunch with him. :-) > > > > On a practical matter, you are not planning on letting one poster give > > another 20 dings/day by themselves, are you? That could be a problem, I > > think. > > I think that dinging should be limited on a per-day basis. I think that > no single person should give another single person more than one ding > per day, at least until we see how the system works out in reality. If > someone wants to ding 10 different people in one day, I don't have a > problem with that, especially since being the dinger would carry some > cost. (This is just my opinion, though.) I think that is reasonable. But, I've got a neat, IMHO, variation on that. If person A dings person B, who dings back, person A should be free to ding again. But, then person B would also be free to ding back. The question is whether we will have two antagonists who act like dingbats by dinging back and forth. Dan M. > Julia > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
