new.morning, you write too much. Take a break.
--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Re: Vote here for the "Aliens" solution > > I applaud Turq for his creatively thinking about "how can we make this > thing work". And I like the direction of his suggestions. They offer > some good refinements, and practicalities, over what i suggested > yesterday. > > In that spirit of creative problem solving, diologue and refinement, I > offer the following encouragement and refinements: > > 1) I agree that some fixed number of posts per time period is easier > to implment and more practical than my suggested "% of posts". > > I think 7-10 posts a day is a good upper limit. > > I do suggest a refinment in the time period. I think a month may be a > bit too long a monitoring period. If someone is on a compulsive, > venting or minutia jag, it may be better for them to send them more > immediate feedback. And keeps FFL from being choked during the 2-3 > week lead up to their reaching their limits. > > Thus I suggest: > > * a limit of 70 posts for any 7 day period. Thats 10 posts per day. > > * voluntary monitors. Thus it would not take any of the moderators > time -- other than to pull the plug on someone, and reinstate them (30 > seconds). > > Thus if someones posts seem excessive, anyone can pull the stats, post > them, and if non-disputed, moderators will pull the plug. > > * "time-outs" would be one week for the first two time-outs. Two weeks > thereafter. > > This is not as harsh as a full months suspension. And may be enough > feed-back for those seeking to become responsive and cordial FFL citizens. > > ----- > > As far as immediate suspension of Judy, Sparaig and Shemp, while i > feel that may hve some merit, it is sort of an ex post facto > imposition of new rules. And without self-governing guidelines for FFL > -- an separate initiative i am working on -- its not practical IMO. > > I do feel some action is appropriate given today, Sparaig's, (and > shemp's to a degree) childish response to a serious issue. Total > snubbing of noses, and no acknowledgement of their abuse of FFL, nor > any constructive diologue. And Judy's only response appears to be to > bash Barry. Again and Again. No acknowledgment, no constructive diologue. > > Thus I suggest the following -- echoing and perhaps extending the > suggestions of others. It can be done immediately. No need for Ricks > approval. > > For one month: > > * Do not under any circumstances respond to any post of these three > (Sparaig, Judy and Shemp) -- directly or indirectly (referencing it in > a post to others). > > * Do not under any circumstances respond to any poster who does > continue responding to these three. > > My sense is that without "fuel" of posts to bounced off of, these > three will pretty much "dry up". Or at least reduce posts of > self-declarations and self-importance. > > And if they hyper-react with 100's of silly "see me" posts -- it > simply builds a case for the need for explicit "time-out" rules. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
