--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > Have to agree with Judy on this one. Not flaming was as much > > a collective agreement as not overposting. To be diligent about > > one and intentionally violate the other is inconsistent and > > even hypocritical. Perhaps it takes more strength to abstain > > from flaming than from overposting, but it's still the same > > muscle. Exercise it. > > But flaming is often in the eyes of the beholder, Rick, and with > the post limit, IMO, is too much--hence you have people self- > appointing themselves as cop and taking it upon themselves to go > after the offenders.
Heck, that was happening with the posting limit too--you were one of the self-appointed, as I recall. The big problem with the no-flaming agreement, as I see it, is that it'll only work if it's *enforced*. Rick hasn't been enforcing it. You're going to get all kinds of resentment if most people are observing the agreement while a few simply brazenly defy it, with no action taken to bring them in line. It's understandable that Rick doesn't want to play cop, but there's no point in having rules if there's no one enforcing them. If he would really watch closely for a while and actually ban a few offenders for a week to show he's serious, things would settle down pretty quickly, I'll bet, and he wouldn't *have* to do much more than that. If things began to get out of line again, and folks alerted him by email rather than on the forum, he could start monitoring again. Things will probably never stay settled down for good, but some forceful action should initiate a settled- down period, at least. Right now, it's falling into the same old anarchy because the folks that feel the agreement doesn't apply to them aren't seeing any consequences.
