| 1 |
On 12/16/2017 10:14 AM, Nils Freydank wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017, 23:41:45 CET schrieb kuzetsa: |
| 3 |
>> On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> 5. Reasons for warnings and bans |
| 5 |
>>> -------------------------------- |
| 6 |
>> --snip-- |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>> c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row |
| 9 |
>>> d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated |
| 10 |
>>> questions |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> (constant means more than two times in a row) |
| 13 |
>> Point #c versus #d |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> #c - there can (and often are) good faith reasons for |
| 16 |
>> multiple postings "in a row", such as when responding |
| 17 |
>> to multiple threads, and/or to multiple posters within |
| 18 |
>> the same thread. Even just people who are awake (and |
| 19 |
>> would respond) at a time when other participants in the |
| 20 |
>> list would be sleeping could complicate this rule. |
| 21 |
> Valid point. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>> #d - definition for constant seems unnecessary. For an |
| 24 |
>> alternative, maybe refine the definition to either |
| 25 |
>> use a 72 hour window or similar, or even just a basic |
| 26 |
>> expectation for discussion to be germane (on-topic) |
| 27 |
>> with refusal to stay on-topic (when warned) being the |
| 28 |
>> measure. Perhaps three strikes (per day?) are when |
| 29 |
>> the enforcement could start. parliament / congress |
| 30 |
>> and other formal assemblies have models for this. |
| 31 |
> Sounds good to me. As spamming is *always* off topic |
| 32 |
> this should even catch point c). |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Could you write a short paragraph for this? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Haven't been paying much attention to this thread. |
| 37 |
(I was quoted here - Point #c versus #d) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Am I being asked to write something up? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Clarification would be appreciated. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
- kuzetsa |
Archives