Well, I've been offline all weekend (moving), and so I'm getting caught up.
There have been some very good suggestions from everyone on a policy, but there has been also some questioning of whether or not we need a policy.
Profanity, vulgarity, obsenitcy, etc., are all relative definitions, whose specific denotations vary from person to person, and more from population to population. The factions that have developed over this issue probably stem from those to whom the term-in-question was not too bad, and those who thought that it was obvious cussing. So, the arguements, "He didn't say anything that bad," and, "It was obviously that bad," demonstrate the need for the codification of policy. If an Englishman posted "fanny" to the list, would/should he get banned? Meanings have greatly changed over time (would someone get banned for using the word "dork"?) As such, we should expect that people who come to the list are from different backgrounds. Even though we share some common beliefs, the applicaiton of those beliefs cannot be assumed to be identical. Therefore, to me, the need for a spelled-out policy, with an elastic clause for the offical list maintainers, is clear.
I have been researching public banned-words lists to find one that fits our needs. (Funny that the FCC's only lists seven words.) Due to our unique situation (BYU-affliliated), we should add profanity - using holy words in inproper contexts. Should acronyms, like RTFM, WTF, IDGARA, etc., be considered vulgar? (I guess it could be, "What the FRICK!?!"). Also, what about name calling? I know I can't call someone a vulgar or racial term, but what about "jerk"? "Communist"? "Capitalist"? "Newbie"? Drawing the line here is where I think the authority of the list maintainers comes into play. However, they should be expected to follow a codified policy, which brings us to:
My proposals for repercussions:
--- Begin Proposal ---
First offense:
A personal email will be sent to the poster from the list maintainers, reminding them of list policy, and, politely asking them to refrain from further use of such terms.
The warning will stay on file for six months. If the term used is one of the FCC's seven deadly words, or any of their derivitives, racial in nature, or obviously profane, the offense will be treated as a second offense.
Second offense (withing six months of the first offense):
The person will be banned from the list.
A personal email from the list maintainer will inform the offender of the action and remind them of their previous offense, including its date.
A post will be made to the board explaining that the user has been banned for his post, with date, having been warned previously, with date.
Reinstatement: Users may negotiate their readmttance to the list with the list maintainers.
Spamming:
Due to the rules set out in this policy, I cannot accurately describe spammers on the list. Therefore, we'll just say that anything decided by list maintainers to be spamming will result in an instant ban - without the possibility for reinstatement.
--- End Proposal ---
Okay, I predict that the debate will surround three issues: 1. The lack of an initial, automatic ban. 2. The public flogging^H^H^H^H^H notice of the ban 3. The lack of clarity on the reinstatement process.
So, let me start:
1. I think banning someone for a week or so at their first offense, ignores the issues I laid out at the top of this email. It ignores the growing/learning required by anyone new to a community. It would also have the same effect as a full ban, since the user would most likely not return.
2. Much has been said in this discussion regarding whether or not the other list members should know what's happened. I believe they should. If someone says something bad enough to get banned, even after a warning - and we just don't hear from them, we would not know a) not to respond to their email because they won't get it, b) what it was that got them banned. The first wouldn't cause too much problem, but creating a public record, as part of the list, of the standards we expect should clarify the issue. Also, a good comment on this discussion was, "Well, the maintainers are *elected*. If you don't like what they do, don't vote for them next election." However, if there is no public notice of banning - spamming or otherwise - we, the voting members would not know there was anything going on.
3. Because I have only maintained lists for the classes I teach - and I have absolute authority in those issues and the students are always very well behaved - I have little experience in reintatement, and I would like the input of those more experienced than I as to what should be required for reinstatement. 50 push ups? Ice cream at the next meeting? ;)
--jeremy
--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/
The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
