Job

[Skanky Burns]

On behalf of the Apolyton administration:

[Rasbelin]

Skanky:

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Popups are annoying, but ultimately we get a nice free service. The efforts of those responsible shouldn't go unnoticed......even if they do give you pcr's for some harmless spam.

I agree, especially when you aren't even spamming.



ACK!

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Tuberski


I agree, especially when you aren't even spamming.



ACK!

Lol, I don't think it's fair to say there was no spam, but it would be fair to look questioningly at other threads where much worse spam is ignored. I guess Mark was just having a bad day, and decided to spread it out a bit.

[Skanky Burns]

It was overly harsh, I agree.
But the last time I publically disagreed with Markos over a punishment of someone else, I got a 10-day ban.
So I'm not saying a thing.

[MarkG]

random punishment is better than no punishment. in fact some times it's better than every-case punishment

seriously, we act on the stuff that we see. if we dont see it, we cant act on it...

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by MarkG
random punishment is better than no punishment. in fact some times it's better than every-case punishment

Well yes and no. It is the eternal equity/efficiency trade-off. You are trying to minimise overall spam by punishing a sample of individuals, which may well be the most efficient way of tackling the issue. But not treating like as like is clearly inequitable. Those that are punished are paying for both their own and others' spam.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Those that are punished are paying for both their own and others' spam.

And your point?

[DrSpike]

Inequity.

And another thing; if the PTB's are going to persist (as they probably should) in sporadic attempts to curb spam, which fall randomly on various posters, I feel you need to look again at the severity of post counts reductions in these cases. 10% given for these little spam incentive reducers, (again, especially given that it has been admitted that these fall pretty randomly) when 10% is also often given for much worse behaviour committed by specific individuals seems inconsistent to me.

[Ming]

Consider it just like speeding... many people do it, but only some people get caught. And it's expensive when you do get caught

[DrSpike]

Your analogy is not without merit. In both circumstances monitoring is costly, and it is the fine for those who do get caught that acts an incentive for those who don't. I have already said I agree with that part, as inequitable as it may be it is efficient.....as an economist I know lots about mechanisms for providing incentives when monitoring costs are high.

But to continue your analogy would you fine someone speeding at 80 MPH on the motorway the same as someone doing 100MPH on an 'A' road. Of course you wouldn't, and that is why more thought needs to be given to relative fines in our case as well.

[Ming]

I've given people 50% PCR's before... would you like me to change yours to that

[DrSpike]

If you think I am wrong, say so, and tell us why.

[Ming]

Moderators all act in their own way... MarkG is king of the standard 10%... MtG is king of the quick hook... Rah usually just posts in a thread, and the problem stops... I take many things in consideration when giving punishments, leaning more toward variable length restrictions then PCR's.

Different strokes for different folks... and that's just the way it is.

[DrSpike]

Ok, thanks for the discussion Ming, though your 50% post did you no credit. I am just trying to raise some points I think are relevant, not campaigning for a pcr remover.

That would abrogate the incentive effect, leaving the inequity and damaging the efficiency. Not good policy.