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' Holgersson
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.