> > > Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick"
> > > as relates to following churn suspensions.
> >
> > As Cameron pointed out earlier, as soon as they do that,
> > the following churners will adjust their methods to be
> > just inside that definition of OK.
> 
> This seems like a really short-sighted reason for NOT 
> clarifying what's acceptable and what's not.  

The alternative is considerably more restrictive limits that globally apply
so that any value up to the mythical X has little repercussion (right now
the X is probably high enough that tons of people doing (X-1) is probably
just as bad if not worse, and publishing the limit makes it possible for
more people to do just that).

There is some argument to support such a clampdown, but I'd rather have
things dealt with on a case-by-case business.

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- PRIVACY. IT'S EVERYONE'S BUSINESS. -- Evil, Inc. ---------------------------

Reply via email to