|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Timothy Morge wrote:
>
> Instead of people trying to be the judge and jury here, why don't we all just
> make it easy! No one advertises anything!
Then you get creative spam (the dead dog story - or was it a cat?)and
the argument rages about whether it was spam or not. Another dodge is
to say that it wasn't intentional. Something like either of those
should be good for about 75 - 100 posts (minimum)to the list.
If Pierre Orphelin mentions the word fuzzy is that spam? If Mark Brown
speaks of tradelab, is that spam or information? Who decides? I'm not
singling these two out for any reason except that I'm sure most would
agree that they have contributed a lot to the list. I just wanted to
create an example to illustrate a point not create another controversy.
The problem is what to do about someone that spams the list. Since
bashing creates as much or more noise than it hopes to prevent, it seems
to be ineffective and counterproductive. The only other way I can see
is to empower someone to banish someone from the list. Arbitrary
decisions (even about who to vote for/against) lead to much more noise
from those that question the decision.
About the only way that the list can maintain it's integrity is for
there to be a complaint recepient/executioner. Once "X" number of
complaints are received, the person that is the subject of the complaint
is warned that if they continue, they will be expelled. The complaints
against them are wiped out. The next time the complaint threshold is
reached, they are axed immediately. No temporary reprieve from the
governor. That way the list has control in the grey areas and lawyers
need not get involved. Noise is reduced and spammers are banished.
Just a suggestion. Creating noise (I vowed that I wouldn't) in an
attempt to help out.
~Alan
|