On 19 September 2019 18:18:40 BST, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> wrote: >Here is an RFC to "Prevent disruptions of conversations" >https://wiki.php.net/rfc/prevent_disruptions_of_conversations
Looking at this RFC purely from the stated motivation, I think that there are two key things that need improving before it is considered for a vote. Firstly, it doesn't define things clearly enough. It is certainly easier to define general principles than it is to codify every possible scenario in advance; however, the looser those definitions, the more trust needs to be placed in whoever has the task of interpreting them. As it stands, this proposal carefully avoids appointing anyone to have that authority, meaning that every application of the process would be subject to open-ended debate. If the intention is to put a short-term rule in place without opening too many additional questions, it would perhaps be clearer to propose a small set of specific rules, which don't cover everything, but can be applied clearly and immediately. Secondly, it only handles the most extreme cases; there is no halfway between asking nicely and an indefinite ban. Not only does that leave a lot of grey areas that are not addressed at all, but it reduces the deterrence power - all that's needed to avoid punishment is to be not quite bad enough for the harshest penalty. A simple approach that I've seen work well is to have a short ban - say a week, or a month - for a first offence, scaling to a year (or indefinite) after three or more. That gives warnings more "teeth", and punishments more flexibility. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these suggestions. Regards, Hi Dan, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
