On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote: > 5. Reasons for warnings and bans > -------------------------------- --snip-- > c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row > d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated > questions > (constant means more than two times in a row)
Point #c versus #d #c - there can (and often are) good faith reasons for multiple postings "in a row", such as when responding to multiple threads, and/or to multiple posters within the same thread. Even just people who are awake (and would respond) at a time when other participants in the list would be sleeping could complicate this rule. #d - definition for constant seems unnecessary. For an alternative, maybe refine the definition to either use a 72 hour window or similar, or even just a basic expectation for discussion to be germane (on-topic) with refusal to stay on-topic (when warned) being the measure. Perhaps three strikes (per day?) are when the enforcement could start. parliament / congress and other formal assemblies have models for this.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature