| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:22:26 -0400 |
| 3 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> It is sad when people cannot use means like Comrel or violations of |
| 6 |
>> CoC to control things as they see fit. Then they seek other means to |
| 7 |
>> limit, control, and filter people. That is hardly an open society, much |
| 8 |
>> less accepting or tolerant. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The best thing about a rate limit mechanism, is instead of having to single out and blacklist |
| 11 |
> various egregious users who are an evident problem, and having to defend accusations of bias .... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You get to target the behaviour in a way that applies to everyone equally. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> You can't claim somebody is getting special treatment that way. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Or do you *want* special treatment? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
My two cents: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
We shouldn't treat everyone equally, but the basis of our |
| 22 |
discrimination should be based on behavior, not identity. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
A blind ratelimit would cause problems, since there are a number of |
| 25 |
legitimate uses for rapid messages, of which kernel patches are one |
| 26 |
such example. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
What if the ratelimit was based on karma? Some sort of feedback |
| 29 |
mechanism where list readers could up/down-vote specific senders based |
| 30 |
on quality? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
My hunch is that such a mechanism would naturally weed out |
| 33 |
unproductive discussion. |
Archives