On 12/16/2017 10:14 AM, Nils Freydank wrote:
> 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?

Haven't been paying much attention to this thread.
(I was quoted here - Point #c versus #d)

Am I being asked to write something up?

Clarification would be appreciated.

- kuzetsa

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to