| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> - Allow one post per x hours per person... enforced by allowing only members
> to even post and only when they are signed in and using the web interface,
> so there cannot be any spoofing.
Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed
to voice your opinions.
Sorry, Larry, I can't agree with that.
> - Thread depth restriction...
...giving an automatic "last word" to the person who squeaks in under the post
limit.
> - moderator with preview, moderated by someone (or a rotating committee)
> held in high regard for impartiality who disallows posts that are
> "repetitive" or "non substantive", with no appeal.
Everyone seems impartial until they don't let you (not *you*, Larry, the more
general "you") post something, then they suddenly aren't anymore. :D
I think this would cause many more problems than solutions. Think back to
lugnet.admin.council- except that by definition these reviews would be forced
to take place offline.
> One permutation is self moderation. Allow people who have posted recently to
> "disallow" someone from posting for a cooling off period if a majority vote
> requires it. Or permanently?
I don't know about the voting thing, but I have to admit I think that perhaps
only allowing one post per thread per X time period might be a way to go.
Walking away from your keyboard can give you a real perspective on how much you
*actually* care about some of this stuff... and, of nothing else, it would keep
the post count down.
Of course, you would have to find a way to stop someone from simply starting a
new "thread" to respond more than once to actually make this work, and I don't
see how that can be done.
But this fails to address something I see as a larger problem- that the
off-topic.debate group is being used for more than just a release valve for
off-topic arguments/discussions that by the nature of newsgroups automatically
crop up from time to time, and are instead being used to support ongoing,
unsolvable and ultimately meaningless diatribes and debates. If there were a
way to reasonably solve that problem, I'd rather see that addressed
specifically.
> The question is, are any of these worth the development effort on Todd's
> part vs. just killing the thing?
You left out the option of maintaining status quo.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| I *said* they had flaws and were thought starters... so you'll see a smiley behind every one of my responses, I'm trying to be funny in them. I suggest you post some ideas of your own, I'm trying to get some brainstorming going... (...) Why not? (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I'll take some culpability here, I'm a sucker for trying to show up the clueless, and no matter how many times I swear it off, it's just too tempting... he's just so cluelessly annoying when he wants to be. (but he CAN be a good contributor (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
