| 1 |
On 01/15/17 14:23, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> What do you think? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the |
| 6 |
intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual |
| 7 |
contributing members of the community at large, the proposed |
| 8 |
definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads |
| 9 |
already in place. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
To provide some perspective to those unfamiliar with the actual volumes |
| 12 |
in consideration here, just on the forums there are typically several |
| 13 |
"users" manually banned per day for posting spam, and perhaps a dozen or |
| 14 |
two profiles manually banned because the profiles themselves were spam, |
| 15 |
in addition to that there are typically hundreds (in some cases |
| 16 |
thousands) of accounts which are effectively automatically banned due to |
| 17 |
their spam content or at the very least matching reported user profiles |
| 18 |
on Stop Forum Spam[1]. Opening a Council bug for each of these would be |
| 19 |
an insurmountable workload if done manually, and at the very least a |
| 20 |
ludicrous volume of completely pointless mail to all Council members; |
| 21 |
but it is *exactly* what would be required by this proposal. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As for the potential counterargument that bots could be easily dropped |
| 24 |
from the definition of "user" in this context, there is no general way |
| 25 |
to distinguish a bot from a non-bot user in full generality, and several |
| 26 |
ways in which non-bot users and bots could effectively share accounts so |
| 27 |
it would all need reported regardless. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Note that the above is not considering any actions taken with regard to |
| 30 |
contributing users, which are by comparison quite rare, though one could |
| 31 |
consider locking a topic to be a "disciplinary action" which would |
| 32 |
require still more Council bugs, warnings regarding borderline behavior |
| 33 |
would require still more Council bugs. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
As it stands, disciplinary actions are handled per medium and channel, |
| 36 |
with appeals going first to those with direct authority over that medium |
| 37 |
or channel, then to ComRel, then the Council. This is simple, |
| 38 |
consistent, and most of all it is on the whole effective; all while |
| 39 |
minimizing the amount of make work. If there is meant to be an implicit |
| 40 |
argument that this is somehow insufficiently documented, by all means |
| 41 |
make that point, ask people to document things more pervasively, do not |
| 42 |
discard a working system because someone could not be bothered to read |
| 43 |
the documentation. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
[1] http://www.stopforumspam.com/forum/index.php |
Archives