Resending as per Mark Ryan's email on an accidental rejection from queue.
Parker
On 2/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:41:56 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
(apologies for non-trimmed top posting)
Ray, I subscribe to unblock-en-l.
So do I.
The really gross cases, I simply
don't read. I'm not capable of extending good
faith so some of those
people, so I leave them alone.
If you're not capable of extending good faith long enough to examine a case,
you have no business with admin powers.
I *know* some cases are valid even
though they are stated in obnoxious terms and often by
obnoxious
people. One who was unblocked under a month ago is now in front of
ArbCom; the unblock was probably valid but I'd not have unblocked.
Which proves that you don't deserve the power you have, since you're willing
to throw the book at people even when it's clear they've already been abused
by someone else.
The
thing is, though, we don't need those cases here.
Here, we discuss
things which might actually be broken.
If by "discuss" you mean mouth vague platitudes and stonewall...
Admins blocking abusive trolls
is not broken.
With this I agree.
I trust the mods to sort out the abusive trolls from
the simply rude and obnoxious, I then apply my own
filters to the rude
and obnoxious.
May I suggest you apply your filters through a mirror briefly.
Overall, the mods are doing just fine.
No, they're not.
Either the
seriously batshit cases don't post here, like they
do to the unblock
list, or they are being modded, and actually I don't care which.
The "seriously batshit" cases don't post here, but the cases which do post
here are ignored or pooh-poohed by personages like yourself anyways.
Thus the problems.
Parker
--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com