> Step 1 - implement a limit on the number of postings per day.

I can see problems with this though.. discussion is not limited to a
certian number of posts...

Say in one day that I post 10 revelant discussions to the list.

I get 10 very seperate replies to the list and feel that I need to reply to
all of them.

So now I'm a 20 quite eaisly. Then they may rebut and so on and so forth.
Where do you suggest that we draw the line? 20, 30, 50.. I think that
limiting in this regard is highly irregular and restrictive to a discussion
list of any kind. As this list grows and becomes a place for us all to
discuss the issues we face daily your suggestion will inhibit this outcome.

Regards,

Michael-Pappas.

> I support a version of option 1 - putting a limit on the number of
> posts per day.  That resolves the problem of certain individuals
> sending gazillions of postings which many consider content free, but
> without having to impose censorship.
>
> auDA is a Regulatory Authority, and a logical monopoly.  As a monopoly
> I believe it has a obligation to try and implement solutions that
> increase the 'signal to noise' ratio while trying to avoid a charge of
> 'refusing to listen' by introducing barriers to participation (which is
> what Option 3 below would do).
>
> Probably the best option is a hierarchy of solutions:
>
> Step 1 - implement a limit on the number of postings per day.
>
> If that doesn't work, move to
>
> Step 2
>
> If that doesn't work, move to
>
> Step 3
>
>
>
> Note for all those who advocate censorship (i.e. kicking other people
> off the list):  You can implement your own censorship by using your
> email client filters to trash unread posts from people who's posts
> you're not interested in.  I object to recommendations that would
> result in you censoring what I see.
>
>
> Regards, Mark
>
> Mark Hughes
> Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
> effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au
> www.pplications.com.au
> +61 4 1374 3959
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au]
>> Sent: Friday, 22 March 2002 12:16
>> To: y
>> Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS List
>>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Firstly, I think this is a storm in a teacup. Every public mailing
>> list I have been on had trolls or "serial pests" appearing and
>> disrupting the list from time to time. Once they are gone, people will
>> just forget about them after a week or two and life will just go on. I
>> don't think this is a major controversy.
>>
>> Admittedly it happens a bit more than usual here, because we are
>> dealing with topics people are passionate about. Thankfully, most
>> people here actually agree. No-one except a few likes invoice-like
>> solicitations from resellers, but it gets dredged up every month or so
>> by another subscriber who thinks that it is wise to rehash it again.
>>
>> | 1.	Have the list moderated either by checking contributions before |
>> they are posted or in some other way such as limiting the number of |
>> posts per day for those who appear to be abusing the list.
>>
>> I don't favour active moderation.
>>
>> The list previously had a 5 post per day quota for the exact same
>> reasons that it is being proposed today. However, once the offending
>> parties had moved on it was more of a hindrance than a help. Only
>> valued contributers were being stymied by the restriction.
>>
>> | 2.	Introduce some new rules for the list, the breach of which would
>> | lead to removal. These might include things such as no pseudonyms,
>> no | fake email addresses, no personal attacks etc. These rules would
>> be | included on the application form and the submission of the form
>> would | oblige the member to abide by the rules. The form would also
>> need to | include an indemnity to auDA against any liability arising
>> from comments | made on the list. All current participants would need
>> to complete a form | as well as new ones.
>>
>> If an indemnity would ease any legal problems then I don't have a
>> problem with it.
>>
>> | 3.       Cut the DNS List loose by providing a couple of weeks
>> warning | that we will cease to host and thus allowing someone else to
>> pick up the | responsibility if they want. Meanwhile, we would set up
>> a new auDA | discussion list open to auDA members, registry, registrar
>> and
>> | re-sellers.
>>
>> A last resort, but as the list manager, if it came to this I would be
>> happy to look for a new host and relocate it without "cutting it
>> loose". As
>> stupid as it gets sometimes, this list is useful.
>>
>> kim
>> (speaking for myself)
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of
> the author, further information at the above URL.  (318 subscribers.)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/ Please do not retransmit articles on
> this list without permission of the  author, further information at the
> above URL.  (318 subscribers.)