Skinner's getting serious.

[rug]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598742

[Major Nikon]

1. I'd be OK with a non-lethal voltage applied to the offender wired to their alert button

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Non lethal?

Molly coddler.

[Oneironaut]

2. If have 3 0-7 alerts in a row, Skinner hacks your computer and blows it up.

[clarice]

3. Alerts suck. nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. They don't always suck!

I just sent one on an obvious troll. Since I'm not on MIRT right now, this is the best I can do.

So There!

[BlueJazz]

6. You're not on a Mobile Infra-Red Transmitter ?? I think you're plenty nice to have one.

n

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. I've never heard of such a thing, my dear BlueJazz!

So, no, I don't have one!

[davidpdx]

8. I don't know Skinner, but I take it more as a haha type answer than sure I'll look into it

To me, he sounds resistant to changing the jury system (I could be wrong and if I am I'll cop to it). You've been around longer and have more of an interaction with him over time, so you probably know better than I do.

There was a discussion in a thread not to long ago where several people were talking about how the number of alerts could be limited. Many different ideas were thrown about (I'd like to it, but I'm too lazy to go look). I had a bit different take on it. If I understand his he would base it on 3 unsuccessful alerts, then you would lose your posting privileges. My idea was simply to limit people to 3 alerts per month and then after that they could not alert until the next month (doesn't matter if they were successful or unsuccessful). Think of them like timeouts at a game that are being used for a disputed play. The 24 hour rule for 0-7 alerts would still apply which would help from people sending bad alerts.