I’m reading through all these posts tonight and this was a good one, which I’m inclined to implement. If I do, I’ll make a more concise announcement.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of new.morning Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:30 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Enforcement of Guidelines Rick, we have precedents for enforcing the guidelines here, including successive week bans on violators of the 35/week posting limit. We also have a precedent for your trying out common sense administrative polices for which there is not yet a consensus (the 35 post/week limit). Thus, its not inconsistent, there are precedents, for your experimenting with administrative policies to enforce the guidelines, for which there is no consensus yet. And there are precedents for temporary bans on people who violate the guidelines. And while some guidelines may be too ambiguous to enforce, explicit flaming of another is not. I suggest that you try for one month, doing successive/cumulative 1 week bans (2 weeks for second violation, etc) for blatent flamers. That being define as direct insults, attacks and profanities directed towards another poster. Strong criticisms of ideas of fine. Strong and often rude criticisms and attacks of a poster's personality or motives are not. One last constraint for not doing this is that you don't have time to monitor such. You don't need to. Anyone who feels they or another have been personally attacked, insulted or sworn at, should write you, off-line, stating their case. the offending post(s) should be hypertexed. You can then decide on a case to case basis. Or if that is too time consuming, pass it on to a panel of three. I say complaints should be written off line to spare the grandstanding and flaming debates that such a public post may incite. A blatent flaming post is obvious. Such a post does not require public debate. You know what a blatently flaming personal insulting post is. There is no ambiguity. Simply use your good an common sense. So there are no good constraints to implementing this. 1) the guidelines are explicit and longstanding. 2) there is precedent for enforcement of the guidelines via successive/cumulative one week bans. 3) Identification of direct insults, attacks and profanities directed towards another poster and often rude criticisms of a poster's personality or motives are not ambiguous of subjective. They are clear. 4) Implementation will not require much, or even any if you choose, of your time. 5) There is a need for such enforcement. For example, Bronte's posts cite a number of valid points. And why a lot of considerate people with good ideas don't post here. 6) Such enforcement does not in any way constrain the free-wheeling anything goes in the realm of ideas. POVs, discussion and criticism of such. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.9/994 - Release Date: 9/7/2007 4:40 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 PM
