On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote:
> 5. Reasons for warnings and bans
> --------------------------------
> 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to