Posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 15:09:07
In reply to Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
> So here's an idea, what if we adopt another 3-post rule? In this case, a limit of 3 objections per poster -- to posts I consider OK -- per other poster.
My initial reaction is that it sounds rather cumbersome and difficult to administer - especially keeping track of posts - but I guess that's not to be my worry.
> Say A objects 3 times to posts by B. If I see a problem with those posts, then I'll enforce the rules, and A has helped me administrate. B may feel angry, but that would be considered an acceptable tradeoff.Are these to be 3 consecutive posts, or are they cumulative? If after 2 consecutive posts by A, you sanction B, does the clock start over for A relative to B?
> If I consider those posts OK, however, it would then be up to A deal in some other way with posts by B, for example, by not even reading them.
What if B does something horrendous, and you haven't caught it? Wouldn't this be counterproductive?
> Any questions? Let me know what you think...Gosh. I don't know. I don't have a good feeling one way or the other. I don't like what has been happening here, but I am at a loss as to how to remedy it. Maybe your idea is the best that anyone will come up with. However, there are plenty of individuals posting on PB that can serve as subjects for requests for determination such that there may not be a significant impact on the volume of requests in the face of vigilence. If the pool of questioned posts remains predominently from the administration board, your idea might work. I'm not sure this supposition will be demonstrated as true, though.
I hate to see more restrictions. But I hate more watching members of the community leave because of the behavior of a limited number of posters making an unlimited number of requests for determination.
I'm glad I don't have your job.
:-(
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:407882
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407987.html