Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7679629" data-attributes="member: 177">No.&nbsp; Whether we speak of &quot;merit&quot; or &quot;effort&quot; my point is pretty much the same - clicking &quot;refresh&quot; isn't a high enough bar. And I mean this is a real, practical sense.&nbsp; Consider how the internet works - setting up a system that will take 10,000, or 30,000 complex connections to a database within a 10-second period (what happens in these &quot;open the floodgates&quot; situations) is exorbitantly expensive.&nbsp; So, taking actual real-time first-in, first out is off the table.&nbsp; Any other scheme must throttle the traffic, or it isn't functional.&quot;Sit and repeatedly click refresh&quot; is not a high enough barrier.&nbsp; Enough people will do that to flood an affordable registration/housing system.&nbsp; And, when the system is flooded, which user gets through becomes a matter of luck, not effort - in other words, it becomes a lottery!&nbsp; If that's what it is going to be, then why not actually use a lottery in the first place?The real point is that there must be more work for the user involved in order to throttle traffic sufficiently to make the system not be a lottery. And if am am willing to try harder by way of volunteering time in a soup kitchen for a month of Saturdays, aren't I more deserving of receiving it than someone who's sitting on their butt clicking a button?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Let us be clear:&nbsp; You used the word &quot;merit&quot; first, not me.&nbsp;&nbsp; I strongly suggest you stop giving me grief for taking what you wrote to be what you meant.&nbsp;&nbsp; It wasn't a guideline.&nbsp; It was an example of actual work, as I noted above, something that would actually be a filter, where button-mashing doesn't, based off *YOUR* use of &quot;merit&quot;.&nbsp; Sheesh.The con in question was a *separate* example, of how &quot;open the floodgates&quot; is not a particularly fair approach.&nbsp; They were not intended to be put together.&nbsp; The con in question found a different answer, that isn't applicable to the housing issue.&nbsp; Their answer is also imperfect, but it is a darned sight better than &quot;open the floodgates&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7679629, member: 177"] No. Whether we speak of "merit" or "effort" my point is pretty much the same - clicking "refresh" isn't a high enough bar. And I mean this is a real, practical sense. Consider how the internet works - setting up a system that will take 10,000, or 30,000 complex connections to a database within a 10-second period (what happens in these "open the floodgates" situations) is exorbitantly expensive. So, taking actual real-time first-in, first out is off the table. Any other scheme must throttle the traffic, or it isn't functional. "Sit and repeatedly click refresh" is not a high enough barrier. Enough people will do that to flood an affordable registration/housing system. And, when the system is flooded, which user gets through becomes a matter of luck, not effort - in other words, it becomes a lottery! If that's what it is going to be, then why not actually use a lottery in the first place? The real point is that there must be more work for the user involved in order to throttle traffic sufficiently to make the system not be a lottery. And if am am willing to try harder by way of volunteering time in a soup kitchen for a month of Saturdays, aren't I more deserving of receiving it than someone who's sitting on their butt clicking a button? :p Let us be clear: [i]You used the word "merit" first, not me[/i]. I strongly suggest you stop giving me grief for taking what you wrote to be what you meant. It wasn't a guideline. It was an example of actual work, as I noted above, something that would actually be a filter, where button-mashing doesn't, based off *YOUR* use of "merit". Sheesh. The con in question was a *separate* example, of how "open the floodgates" is not a particularly fair approach. They were not intended to be put together. The con in question found a different answer, that isn't applicable to the housing issue. Their answer is also imperfect, but it is a darned sight better than "open the floodgates". [/QUOTE]

Verification