On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:40 PM, authfriend wrote:
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.
Yep. But that's pretty cut and dry, and doesn't involve lectures from
me on how to behave. And people were free to ignore it, and sometimes
did. Or they would pull a Jim Flanegan--don't go over the limit until
late on Friday.
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.
Rick hasn't been available apparently. I am curious, now that he's
more or less back, as to how he *will* handle 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.
He could do lots of things. Time to sit back and watch what he
actually does, hopefully without flaming, myself, although the tendency
is greater with the rules, IMO.
Sal
