| |
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...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Joslin writes:
> 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.
Why not? Think of it as a bonus of membership (ya, that's right, getting
yourself dragged through the muck of .debate is a bonus, where do I sign?) :-)
> > - Thread depth restriction...
>
> ...giving an automatic "last word" to the person who squeaks in under the post
> limit.
Right now the last word goes to whoever is persistent enough to keep trying
for it until everyone else gives up. Why not let luck (or careful counting
of posts) decide it instead? (ever play sprouts? That's a counting the
remaining moves sort of game, and quite entertaining) :-)
> > - 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
Since this would never happen to *me* I don't have a problem with it. :-)
>
> 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.
Yes, that experiment worked quite well. :-) Mostly because we started in
before we knew what Todd actually wanted it for, and got it stunningly wrong.
This time, since the end goal is much clearer (stop the madness) and smaller
(in only the one group) maybe we'd have a chance. Or maybe not, maybe it
would be a way to alienate people wholesale instead of retail.
> > 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.
It may be simpler to implement than some of the others too. And we could get
a nice barter economy going in which I'll sell you my post slot in exchange
for you selling me yours in a thread later on that I care about?? :-)
>
> 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.
Thread moderator? Only one new thread a day?
> 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.
Well, some would argue that the god debate has meaning, since those of us on
the wrong side are in danger of losing our immortal souls, etc. But ya.
Definintely unresolvable, no matter what, though.
> > 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.
Yes, sorry, didn't think i needed to mention it, it's always an option (and
the default choice).
++Lar (stuck in detroit for many hours)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:>>Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed (...) I'm not yet a member (mainly because most of my posting has been to OT rather than LEGO-specific contributions), (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) Well, as soon as I can come up with an idea that I myself can't pick apart on 1000 levels, I will. Unfortunately, thus far I've been unsuccessful... (...) Yeah, but that's the default way of "winning" an argument or flamewar on Usenet. :D (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) The recent history of .debate is certainly that the types of shouting matches have little chance of being productive, however, I will point out that back some time ago, the "Libertarian" debate DID have real productivity. It DID change (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) 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. (...) ...giving an automatic "last word" to the person who squeaks in under the post limit. (...) (...) (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
|
|
|
|
