Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Do we know if he intended for the dings to be anonymous? Anyone?
>
>
> My intention is to try to figure out something that works in this
> environment, with help from all of you. It surely won't satisfy all,
> perhaps none, but I hope we can collectively arrive at minimal governance
> with maximum positive effect for all. And I'm sure that no matter what is
> done, some people will disagree about whether we have arrived there or not.
Sorry, I guess that I missed the post where the dinging
system was described in detail. Were you thinking of some system
of ratings, like they use at Slashdot?
A system of that order sounds easy enough to implement.
All the subject lines from the list would come with an embedded
rating, like this: [-4]. Then people could either filter based
on the ratings, look at all the posts with ratings in mind, or
just ignore them.
Now that [-4] in the post would mean that the author had
4 dings against them. Dings would have to eventually go away,
maybe at the rate of one per day.
I agree, it should cost something to ding. Maybe giving
a ding to someone gives you one ding, or maybe a different ratio
is needed. (A cost of one ding to self for giving another two
dings might work. I want to keep the amount of dings an integer,
so that filtering on them doesn't take writing a script.)
As for the transparency of dinging, how about this?
Requests to ding another go to another list, say brinding-l.
If one wants to watch who is dinging whom, one subscribes. If
not, one doesn't. (Or you could filter posts from the ding-list
into another directory, and look at them when and if you cared.)
So far, the system is easy to scam. We might want to
make it so that only established list accounts can ding. We
would certainly have to do that if we started getting lots of
dings from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"!
---David Hobby
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
