--- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few
> rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if we reach
> a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some
> feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either observing it
> in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you actually
> feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling
> polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate the
> democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But if we can
> collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency, perhaps
> we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the
> "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something we have
> all agreed to.
>
Thanks for offering to consider ways to improve FFL. Happy Birthday, FFL !
Respect and decency are wonderful, and although those qualities are lacking in
many
posts, I think the 35 - post per week limit has helped tremendously to
improve the tone
and quailty of discussion. I don't relish the idea of seeing debate on whether
a poster
deserves to be banned, should be banned, shouldn't have been banned, would have
been
banned had 'fair' decision-making been employed, yada, yada, yada.... Such
debate is
inevitable with a subjective standard, and that debate would raise the 'noise'
level and be
counter-productive. Thank you for instituting the 35-post per week limit, but
please
refrain from instituting subjective means of determining decency, respect, or
abuse.
