On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:18:51 -0500, "Herbert Graf" said:

> All this theoretical talk is interesting, but let's step back a sec and
> consider a practical issue: how do you "ban" a person?
> 
> Anybody can join this list, under any email address, under any name. How
> would a ban (or suspension as you are suggesting) work? How would YOU
> implement a ban? The same can of course be said for moderation. The
> difference is moderation hurts a persons ego far less then a ban,
> meaning fewer "retribution" acts.
> 
> Sure, we could restrict list membership, but that increases the work
> load on us admins. It also wouldn't really solve anything since how
> would WE determine that a new arrival is a banned individual? The answer
> is you can't.
> 
> The fact is moderation, as distasteful as it is, works. The list has run
> FAR smoother in the "time of moderation" then it did before. People may
> not prefer the solution, but I haven't heard of any other workable
> solution that has the potential of being more effective.

Let me also add that there are 2000 people on this list. If you use the
population of the United States as an example, at any time 3.2% of the
adults are incarcerated. Applying that percentage to the Piclist the
result is 64 people. There have never been 64 Piclisters banned or under
moderation.

I'm sure this email falls under the category of "lies, damn lies, and
statistics" but I thought it worth mentioning that there is no system
that can always please 100% of it's users. Even Geico seems to do no
better than the US incarceration percentage, and they have a lizard :)

My apology to Olin, I am not trying to make fun at your expense, the
last sentence was merely what came to mind while attempting to add
perspective.

Best regards,

Bob


-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist