[sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 20:52 +0000, Matthew Dowd wrote:
> > punish the abusers. Such as removing their tagging privileges for N
> months.
> 
> This needs to be done with care - a false report may be a genuine
> mistake - believing the gambling ban applies to free to pay casinos
> which don't give prizes, thinking the "no age play" blogs outlaw child
> avatars etc.

Yes, which is why I'm insisting the decision be made by a human being,
with a user's past behavior taken in to account. A written warning can
be made first, with a three strikes and you're out policy, whatever. I
was being deliberately vague about the details of punishment because it
is orthogonal to my proposed workflow.

> Overall, the amount of manual work to deal with the system proposed
> doesn't sound much less (and possibly more) than the amount to deal
> with a traditional AR - hence my suggest to stick with the current AR
> process!

My main point is once a listing is reviewed and a decision of its
legitimacy is made, that decision stands. No more flaggings/ARs are
allowed, preventing an endless fight over a single listing.

And the idea is that the review team is well familiar enough with the
minute detail of what is against the rules and what isn't, that these
decisions can be made quickly.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080503/5d274bba/attachment.pgp