[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: dinosaur mailing list administrative message



Larry suggested an amendment (CAPS) to the proposed rule 8e:

>//      e) irritating other members of the list...
>//                                      ...In particular, if I receive
>// FIVE complaints about an individual within a span of three days,
>// then that individual will be timed out for one week, SUBJECT TO 
>//THE REASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE LIST >//ADMINISTRATOR THAT THE 
INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE >//TIMED OUT (or words to that effect). 

>This gives Mickey or a successor administrator some flexibility in 
>enforcing the time-out without requiring that he police every message...

I think Mickey's aim was to avoid having to decide whether to time someone 
out.  I have pondered the issue, and I can't think of a simple, easy system 
which is not open to abuse.  If Mickey doesn't mind the wording above, it's 
fine by me.

>Toward that end, I'd also propose that five people may be a better 
>indicator than three that the person has just become too irritating.  
>Once people know that this is an option, they will be more willing to 
>use it, so five won't be hard to get under the appropriate 
>circumstances.

I think three.  We don't want everyone on the list complaining frequently.  
People who are encouraged to complain will become more irritated, 
especially if their complaints are fruitless, and will probably become more 
irritating to others.  Besides, this would mean more messages to Mickey, 
which he has to keep for three days.  (Probably more than twice as many -
determining the change would be an interesting exercise in game theory.)

One more thing to consider: should the _Irritator_ be told who has 
complained?  If not, he/she is sure to make a guess.

All the best,

                                                                Bill