Wulf C. Krueger wrote: > I'm sure they have the best intentions but I've never seen any clear > guidelines for them. They use their best judgement what to handle and > what not to but due to language barriers, cultural differences etc. it's > difficult to judge. The guideline, as far as I understood it, was (and is?) to ban people who dont abide by the time-outs. And the guideline for time-outs, as far as I understood it, was (and is?) to use them when a thread, as obviously as this one, is neither technical, nor productive but a flame war. And yes, in my opinion, it already was one to the time the warning was sent out.
> Do we really need moderation on the list? Or could we just literally > moderate ourselves instead? Could we try and succeed to be just ignore > some flames instead of adding oil to the fire? As the incidents in the last few months showed, there is a handfull of people who seem to love flame wars, or dont have anything better to do, so: No, ignoring them does not work, as it just is not what people are doing, which is why proctors where brought into existence: To make people calm down by forcing a delay, which likely will make them stop replying. > When I first read the CoC I had just read about the entire Ciaran-incident > on the respective bugs, Forums, mailinglists, blogs and many other > sources. CoC, while not bad in itself, seemed (and still seems) to me > like a "Lex Ciaran" - a document with that what I had just read clearly > in mind and targetted at preventing it. The CoC is the legal basis for the proctors (as well as the other teams). > The problem is, though: In an asynchronous communications medium, you > simply cannot pro-actively do anything without bordering on what some > like to call censorship. You can only *re*act in such a situation. The reaction was to delay the thread, and therefore pro-actively forcing people to calm down. There's the hidden pro-active part. Of course, by anyone who felt the urgent need to reply anyway, this effect was destroyed. Furthermore, it was reversed by those replys containing the self-fulfilling prophecy that there is no effect which got things really going. > If, after both sides were investigated properly, the complaining party is > found to be exaggerating or too easily offended, disciplinary action > should be taken against it. I am strictly against any way to punish a complainer, except where it is slander or similar, where in turn, the slandered person might complain via the same way. Punishment for exaggeration leads to arbitrariness. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
