Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017, 23:41:45 CET schrieb kuzetsa:
> 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.
Valid point.

> #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.
Sounds good to me. As spamming is *always* off topic
this should even catch point c).

Could you write a short paragraph for this?

GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17'

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to