On Jan 14, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Azalais Aranxta wrote: > In general, I think that when we invent new ways for people to > communicate on the site, making it possible for people to control > whether trusted, registered or anonymous users can use them to > reach them is generally a good idea.
Yes, and this is a major goal of ours. (Trust me, *nobody* is more intimately familiar with the myriad ways somebody else is going to think up to annoy someone else than I am. You can safely assume that whatever you've thought of, I've probably either seen it being used in the wild, or noticed it as a possibility.) Like Mark says, we're never going to make it the *default* for everything to be closed down/ restricted, in terms of communication between users, but we will make it a priority to build in options for people to restrict who can communicate with them if they want to. People don't need to bring up each individual case of "this should have better granularity" until after we launch and you can see what changes we've made to the codebase already and what's on our still-to- be-done list, because a lot of the changes we're making either invalidate specific annoyance tactics used on LJ or shut them down entirely. (Or the thing being used to annoy someone else doesn't exist on DW, yet or at all.) Have some faith in us. :) After five years of watching what came through the LJ Abuse queue, I have a very specific set of anti-abuse changes in mind, and while they might not all be in the code by open beta, they *will* be in the code by full site launch. --D -- Denise Paolucci [email protected] Dreamwidth Studios: Open Source, open expression, open operations. Coming soon! _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
