[Reader-list] a better thought

[Yousuf]

I have a better idea - it can make Sarai rich. Let us start charging people money for posting messages. The larger or more frequent mails you post, the more money you pay. 
I can see who will be the worst affected by this. 

Yousuf


--- On Tue, 9/30/08, mahmood farooqui <mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: mahmood farooqui <mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] a thought
> To: "Vivek Narayanan" <vivek at sarai.net>
> Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 7:12 PM
> I strongly second Vivek's proposal...
> 
> 2008/9/30 Vivek Narayanan <vivek at sarai.net>
> 
> > Monica et al.,
> >
> > I wonder if some of the issues and difficulties over
> the reader list
> > might be addressed by introducing (and strictly and
> universally
> > enforcing) just one simple, unambiguous instrumental
> rule that we could
> > all agree on:
> >
> > each member of the reader list is allowed no more than
> one post per day
> > / 24-hour period.
> >
> > An exception could be made solely for announcements,
> and that too of an
> > urgent or time-bound nature.  If the member violates
> this rule of
> > conduct and makes, say, two or three posts in a single
> day, then they
> > are first issued a warning.  The second or third time
> they do it, let's
> > say, they are off the list.  Simple as that.
> >
> > I think this could, at the very least, force us all to
> exercise a
> > certain restraint before we hit the send button,
> choosing and focus our
> > energies on making the postings we consider more
> substantial or
> > important, combining thoughts together in a single
> mail.  Since the
> > dominance of certain issues on the list is largely an
> effect of
> > overposting by a small handful of individuals, I think
> this might also
> > help to even out the range of issues that are
> discussed on this list.
> >
> > (To Radhakrishnan-- I don't think we can
> artificially enforce diversity
> > on this list, but we can give it more room to
> breathe.)
> >
> > On a very basic level it encourages respect for other
> peoples' inboxes.
> > People can write their second message, save it and cue
> it up on their
> > mail programs, then send it after a day (after perhaps
> reading it over a
> > second time to see if it's really necessary).
> >
> > As far as I can think-- I don't think anything
> will be lost by this rule?
> >
> > I realise that this procedural rule can be
> circumvented through the use
> > of multiple aliases and heteronyms, and god knows the
> list is no
> > stranger to that, but even in that case I think it
> will help restraint,
> > and prevent cases where, for instance, we get 10
> mindless rants by the
> > same person over the course of a day, or a situation
> where an individual
> > replies to every single mail on the list, regardless
> of whether they
> > have anything interesting to add or not.
> >
> > I also realise that, with this mail, I have violated
> the rule myself!
> > But were we to introduce and agree on this, I would
> certainly abide by it.
> >
> > Vivek
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the
> city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to
> reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive:
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to
> reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject
> header.
> To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive:
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>