[ncdnhc-discuss] Limit email sending....

[Alexander Svensson]

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote on 27.11.01, 18:18:17:
> I don't approve of posting limits.  If we have to have posting limits, I'd
> prefer them to be simple, clear, objective (e.g. number of post per day).
> A larger, but not infinite, limit for Adcom members strikes me as
> essential.
>
> I oppose content-based rules as too costly to enforce, the cause of
> time-wasting debate (such as this), and -- not least -- wrong in
> principle.

Speaking as a guest and frustrated DNSO-GA list (ex?-)moderator:
Limiting the number of postings per day is a fine mechanism,
as it tends to slow down heated discussions and can be
applied mechanically (whether automated or not). Warnings
are equally fine. The number of allowed postings should be 
high enough that minority positions are not faded out and 
that Adcom members can answer questions -- I'm afraid Kent's 
proposal to allow single level replies is too subtle and 
blurs the simple counting rule. I definitely understand the
feeling that all the arguments, appeals and misrepresentations 
should be responded to immediately (especially from a minority
point of view), but exchanging them at a faster speed doesn't 
help the cause. 

As to content-based rules:
If you have someone who is perceived by (almost) all sides 
to be a neutral arbitrator, warnings for strong insults are 
fine. If you don't have such a person, *don't* do it. The
combatants involved in the NCDNHC discussions are well versed 
in the English languages and will be able to keep ad hominem
attacks exactly at the pain threshold. The person trying
to moderate will either be accused of siding with one of
the parties or will be forced to criticize both sides
simultaneously. This is the grown-up version of little
children running to their parents insisting that the other
one started the fight in the first place. 

(My last posting on this half-important subject.)

Best regards,
/// Alexander