| 1 |
Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017, 23:41:45 CET schrieb kuzetsa: |
| 2 |
> On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote: |
| 3 |
> > 5. Reasons for warnings and bans |
| 4 |
> > -------------------------------- |
| 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 |
> |
| 14 |
> Point #c versus #d |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> #c - there can (and often are) good faith reasons for |
| 17 |
> multiple postings "in a row", such as when responding |
| 18 |
> to multiple threads, and/or to multiple posters within |
| 19 |
> the same thread. Even just people who are awake (and |
| 20 |
> would respond) at a time when other participants in the |
| 21 |
> list would be sleeping could complicate this rule. |
| 22 |
Valid point. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> #d - definition for constant seems unnecessary. For an |
| 25 |
> alternative, maybe refine the definition to either |
| 26 |
> use a 72 hour window or similar, or even just a basic |
| 27 |
> expectation for discussion to be germane (on-topic) |
| 28 |
> with refusal to stay on-topic (when warned) being the |
| 29 |
> measure. Perhaps three strikes (per day?) are when |
| 30 |
> the enforcement could start. parliament / congress |
| 31 |
> and other formal assemblies have models for this. |
| 32 |
Sounds good to me. As spamming is *always* off topic |
| 33 |
this should even catch point c). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Could you write a short paragraph for this? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17' |
| 39 |
Holgersson |
Archives