 | | Re: Language Choices and LUGNET
|
|
(...) Seems worthy of exploration. The downside is that an important but unpopular message might get downchecked pretty badly. (...) Interesting proposal. the threshold is somewhat reminiscent of the slashdot karma functionality, if you run at +5 (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Language Choices and LUGNET
|
|
(...) That could be overcome by a mechanism where admins can block a message from being downchecked. -Tim (20 years ago, 27-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Language Choices and LUGNET
|
|
(...) That's okay--say the community isn't enlightened about certain topics. If they unvote "important" topics, it can't be that "important" as a result. What that really says is, we're gonna institute a mechanized form of mob rule. If it's gonna be (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Language Choices and LUGNET
|
|
(...) That defies the purpose, Tim. That's still saying an admin, a person chosen for ambiguous reasons, should have power. Those reasons could be for being a loudmouth, for being the guy who happened to be there, the guy who other admins felt was (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Language Choices and LUGNET
|
|
(...) True but it seems that (although I admit I have little experience with collaborative filtering systems) revenge and retribution would be much easier to pull off. For example, I dislike someone so in revenge I get 20 of my friends to downcheck (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Language Choices and LUGNET
|
|
(...) Some old-timers may remember (URL) this thread>. --Todd (20 years ago, 27-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
