Subject:
|
Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 May 2000 21:57:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5733 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Lehman writes:
> The main difficulty in self-"policing" loc groups is of course the fact that
> participation in the groups is voluntary and open. For example, although
> someone currently residing in the U.S. may not be U.S. citizen, if they
> participate in local loc groups, they deserve a voice in deciding whether or
> not loc.us would/should allow auction traffic if market traffic were extended
> to loc groups. But how is that known by the server if it collected votes?
From a technical standpoint, it is a problem. But I think from a practical POV,
it might not actually be a problem - if someone contributes to any group then
they should have a say, regardless of nationality. If someone wanted to try and
mess up the voting system by casting a stray vote, then it will probably be
statisically irrelevant anyway. IMHO it's not worth straining over trying to
ensure that the voter has the correct nationality or signal/noise ratio in the
group.
> I think if market traffic were allowed in loc groups, it would have to be
> either across-the-board (all loc groups) or across-the-board by default and
> "turned off" by individual groups via some sort of verbal consensus/agreement
> taking place in that group.
Does that include market-posts off by default with the option to turn them on?
I think from that angle, it's easier to add restrictions - ie if a seller
assumed that posting .market posts was a priviledge, not a right.. then they
would be more careful and would possibly check the group page to see what they
could post. Otherwise they might think that "market posts are allowed in .loc
groups" and not bother checking up on individual group rules.
For example - in the .loc.uk, last time it was discussed there was a general
concensous that good UK sales should be allowed, but auctions disallowed. So if
people started auction updates there then it could feasibly be worse than not
having good sale posts :)
> a natural byproduct of this is perhaps optionally maintaining some sort of
> netiquette document local to each group.
Good idea! If we take the off-by-default approach then this will be necessary..
which also has the benefit that .market posts only start appearing once a
community has evolved that is capable with dealing with them if they become a
nuisance.
> If something like this would work, then the upcoming Terms of Use revision
> could, instead of referring to group charters, could refer to these group-
> local documents (which could evolve and expand or contract as needed over
> time) for further definition.
That would rock.
Richard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
