| 1 |
On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote: |
| 2 |
> 5. Reasons for warnings and bans |
| 3 |
> -------------------------------- |
| 4 |
--snip-- |
| 5 |
> c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row |
| 6 |
> d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated |
| 7 |
> questions |
| 8 |
> (constant means more than two times in a row) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Point #c versus #d |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
#c - there can (and often are) good faith reasons for |
| 13 |
multiple postings "in a row", such as when responding |
| 14 |
to multiple threads, and/or to multiple posters within |
| 15 |
the same thread. Even just people who are awake (and |
| 16 |
would respond) at a time when other participants in the |
| 17 |
list would be sleeping could complicate this rule. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
#d - definition for constant seems unnecessary. For an |
| 20 |
alternative, maybe refine the definition to either |
| 21 |
use a 72 hour window or similar, or even just a basic |
| 22 |
expectation for discussion to be germane (on-topic) |
| 23 |
with refusal to stay on-topic (when warned) being the |
| 24 |
measure. Perhaps three strikes (per day?) are when |
| 25 |
the enforcement could start. parliament / congress |
| 26 |
and other formal assemblies have models for this. |
Archives