| 1 |
On 6/11/07, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > 3) said increase means proctors/devrel have more work (meaning more |
| 3 |
> > random outbursts at the proctors/devrel when folks realize that they |
| 4 |
> > *are* going to enforce the behaviour rules, and that the outburstes |
| 5 |
> > can be punished too). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It should probably be made clear beforehand then that these rules are |
| 8 |
> still in effect. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
A semi processed Idea: Instead of proctors using censorship on |
| 12 |
selected persons, and seeing that the -politics/-project channel will |
| 13 |
attract more flies than others, if the proctors whish to provide a |
| 14 |
totally unbiased form of temporary censorship, they could just rate |
| 15 |
limit /all/ users uniformly untill its been ascertained that the |
| 16 |
heat/problem/troll has died down/diminish/quit |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I propose a logarithmic binary back-off strategy, so it wont penalize |
| 19 |
people unless they're intending on posting more than twice ;) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Kent |
| 24 |
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x| |
| 25 |
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@×××.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}' |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives