Perhaps our mistake has been in assuming we require some type of forceful deletion of "bad" posts, or even some automated though-not-global filtering method. It may be that simple audience feedback would suffice to show which topics and posts are being well-received; I think everyone here is benevolent enough to voluntarily respond to that. In fact, I would love any kind of audience feedback on general principles; right now I have no real idea whether, say, the initial-vs.-Interim was perceived as a cosmically important issue or a huge waste of time, whether it had avid readers or was being trashed by virtually everybody.
Design requirements: (1a indicates non-priority requirement)
$public cheer // Everyone can find out I think this is great.
$attrib worthit // Increments worthit; poster can find it's from me
$anon waste =Who cares? // Sends an anonymous boo and comment
$get // returns public ratings on the message; if your
return address equals the poster's, you get a detailed breakdown of attributed "worthits".
1a. Read this even if the responder sends HTML.
2. HTML clients: Attach a FORM containing an input line for a comment and radio buttons set by default to 'attrib' and 'worthit'. 2a. Do this only for list members that register as having an HTML client.
-- firstname.lastname@example.org Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html http://pobox.com/~sentience/sing_analysis.html Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you everything I think I know.