Posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 11:26:03
In reply to Lou's rsponse to alesta's idea-2 » alesta, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:25:08
you really are a congenial fellow!:) i think your idea of a 3-hour halt is fantastic. or some kind of warning instead of blocking first. maybe a warning would be the easiest to implement..this seems very reasonable and advantageous to all parties involved. and then if the poster posts after the warning, then he/she will be blocked. this way no one is caught off guard..a win-win situation.. why not? a warning (instead of a block) after 3 consecutive posts (or whenever bob sees the posts, so it could be more than 3 of course, just as it could if he were using a block first--same result). and if any further posts are made after the warning, then a block seems fair. what do you think? (thanks for bouncing your ideas off me lou--2 heads are better than one.:)) dr. bob, how about it? a warning instead of a block? i seriously doubt anyone is going to post after a warning, unless they are itching for a vacation..:)
or maybe your 3-hour halt is better, actually..love the idea!..whichever is easier for dr. bob to implement..what do you think dr. bob..sounds like an awesome solution!
lou, it was very nice to meeting you.:)