Author
|
Topic: virus: flooding controls. (Read 764 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.47
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
virus: flooding controls.
« on: 2003-08-22 10:56:48 » |
 |
Bill Roh has made some plea for moderation on politics. I however
think that we have less of a problem in that department than he suspects or
fears. I have witnessed several occasions when Bill has made political
points generally contrary to the clear majority political opinion in the
Church of the Virus, and whether or not I disagreed with him I did not feel nor
react negatively towards him over it. I guess he just has a better
capacity to communicate his opinion without causing such turmoil.
I do like to see a variety of political opinions, and the Church of the
Virus is big enough to handle dissenting points of view. So far Bill Roh,
and Jonathan Davis have both represented their recent war positions
fine without causing any of the problems that Joe did. It
was Joe's behavior and not his political position that made discussing
politics unbearable to the point that David had to ban political
discussions from the public portions of the CoV.
I would like to see Church of the Virus to once again become a place where
we can handle political discussions without tearing down the temple. We
have another major political season afoot in the United States in the next year,
2004. One of the best ways that we can begin to have some real
memetic/political influence is to figure out how we can do this in a more
civilized manner. Perhaps we need to get some rules in place to avoid
massive flooding, and obvious personal attacks. The recent actions taken
by David have gone some way towards this, but we need some rules in this
game.
I'm personally adopting the eight post rule. If anyone sees me
posting more than eight times in a twenty-four hour period to the BBS/Email
list, please feel free to point this out either publicly or privately to
me, whichever you find appropriate. I know that I have on a
few occasions in the past posted more than eight times in a day, but I
think I can abide by an eight post limit. Indeed I think it will probably
get me to be a bit more careful how I express myself if I look at these
communications between us as a limited resource.
I am also asking other Virians to consider a posting limit. Any limit
would be good (eight seems to be a popular one on the current poll on
flooding). A limit would help remind everyone that public
communications of this sort are not an unlimited unilateral right, but rather a
shared and limited commodity of the community commons. By not having
a stated limit we effectively lay out the welcome mat for the spammers and
flooders of the world who view other's mailboxes and public forums as their
unlimited resource.
If you have voted against a posting limit on the CoV polling booth, I would
ask that you would reconsider for the above stated reasons. If you still
disagree with me, I would appreciate having an open discussion about
it.
Sincerely,
-Jake
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.
attached: index.html
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Kharin
Adept
Posts: 407
Reputation: 7.75
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:virus: flooding controls.
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-22 11:26:33 » |
|
Quote:| "So far Bill Roh, and Jonathan Davis have both represented their recent war positions fine without causing any of the problems that Joe did. It was Joe's behavior and not his political position that made discussing politics unbearable." |
Well, quite.
Quote:| "A limit would help remind everyone that public communications of this sort are not an unlimited unilateral right, but rather a shared and limited commodity of the community commons. " |
Hmm. I haven't voted on the ceiling issues as yet. However, surely the issue in question is one of content, i.e.quality rather than quantity. Admittedly though, the eight post ceiling doesn't seem something I would have particular difficulties with.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: flooding controls.
« Reply #2 on: 2003-08-22 11:39:53 » |
|
I have voted against a limit.
We are engaged in defining both an appropriate "management system" to deal with various issues within the CoV and a technical update to the facilities. I feel that this issue would be best dealt with by the management comittee and appropriate technical/social interventions.
Something that is immediately clear is that this is yet another area where discretion is vastly better than hard and fast rules. Certainly when the board is busy, three posts from one member on a less than popular topic might be two too many. Yet 30 posts on various subjects from somebody hard at work arranging scientific material covering either disparate or related issues might not be too much. Again, when discussions are flowing and ideas moving backwards and forwards a number of posts may be appropriate (although I'd argue that such discussions might be better held on IRC).
So my recommendation is no rules at all until the "reputable" determine a need for it, at which point a word with the poster should be all that is required if the one change I would advocate is in place, and that is that I would insert some reasonable delay between making a post and it being transmitted to the list (although it should be visible on the BBS). This would allow time to edit it, or even delete it, before it is sent. It also would reduce the "posting volleys" which tend to cause many of the upsets. My suggestion is a 3 to 6 hour delay between posting to the BBS (whether on the BBS or via mail) and distribution of the post to the maillist.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.29
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: flooding controls.
« Reply #3 on: 2003-08-22 13:02:14 » |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of Hermit
Sent: 22 August 2003 05:40 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: flooding controls.
[Bl.]<snip>I have voted against a limit.</snip>
I agree. It seems arbitrary to select a number that constitutes
flooding. Surely it is in the intent rather than the quantity that
flooding betrays itself?
Best regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
