| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <377F7B94.54831B27@voyager.net>...
> Need to read more but seems to me that any mechanistic scheme needs an
> escape clause. if we go with letter IDs, then have the automation be
> relatively harsh and inflexible, but allow appeal.
>
> I know, I know, you don't want to be the decider, because that means
> that you may be charged as being subjective. But you know what, life is
> in some ways subjective and not always completely fair. I think you may
> be straining at gnats if you try to make this perfect.
>
> Set up a policy, then allow exceptions on appeal. Offload the decision
> onto a board of faithful stalwarts (I volunteer for same) done by email.
<snip!>
Todd,
Maybe I've been watching too much "Law and Order", but...
I understand your reluctance to shoulder the huge (!) burden of policing
the member name space for potentially offensive alphanumeric combinations.
The burden, responsibility, and yes, even liability that you would assume
should not be underestimated. But I also feel that it would be much more
"friendly" if members could personalize their IDs by using a nickname if
they prefer, and much more consistent with the current situation and
atmosphere at LUGNET.
It seems to me that whether the censorship is performed by you personally
or by a committee of volunteers, it will still be a big job, and still be
vulnerable to all the same pitfalls. Even a large committee cannot foresee
every possible interpretation of every proposed moniker. And as you
mentioned earlier, the definition of what is "offensive" could change over
time and is largely subjective.
Instead, what if you set up a more democratic "people's court" forum:
Just let each user choose whatever name or nickname they want when they
register, as long as it's not already taken or previously "reserved" as
being blatantly unacceptable. Initially, you rely on the maturity of the
members to choose reasonable names. Then, if somebody later decides that a
user's moniker is offensive, they can lodge their complaint by posting to
the list.
At this point, the "defendant" is notified of the complaint via e-mail
and invited to defend their choice. A public debate on the list would
follow, possibly culminating in a formal yay/nay vote to allow or disallow
the name. You could allow one vote per member, with voting performed either
on a special web page or by e-mailing a "ballot" to a special address before
some deadline.
This is my favorite part -- repeat offenders (do I hear three strikes?)
would have their user name permanently re-assigned by the mob. If a name is
voted down then it (and any obvious variations) is added to the "automatic
reject database" alluded to earlier to squash it for good.
You could also add an escape hatch so that if the defendant "cops a plea"
and changes his/her name without bringing it to a full vote, you reward them
by not counting it as one of their three strikes. This waiver applies only
once-in-a-lifetime in order to prevent abuse.
Of course, this system would require that you be equipped to change
somebody's existing user name to something else at any arbitrary point in
the future. I don't know if this would cause problems for you; you did seem
to want these names to last a lifetime. Also, this probably wouldn't be an
effective way to prevent people from using "cutesy, worst-of-AOL" nicknames.
I think you would find that most disputes would be very clear-cut, and
that this would rarely come to an actual vote of the membership. Also, this
would spread the responsibility for this major task out to the entire
membership. Ultimately, it will depend on the vigilance and outrage of the
entire community to decide what is acceptable under any scheme.
Just a few thoughts fueled by too much coffee!
Sincerely
Chris Phillips
p.s. Note that my most common nickname, "Chrispy" (independently assigned
to me by my co-workers at three different jobs) is another example of one
which would not be legal under the "knock letters out of your name" scheme.
(I'd probably have to settle for "chrispi" or "chrispii" to get the correct
pronunciation.)
p.p.s. The above is NOT a shameless attempt to reserve my moniker! (It's
downright shameful if you ask me!!!)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
