Fred wrote
PLEASE, give us
some guidance that can stick, if (collective you) are
going to make the policy any more specific.
I'm not sure we (the arbitrators) would agree on this point (that it was ever proper
to remove the link to
MichaelMoore.com).
And actually, we didn't necessarily agree to consider that question. Should we?
I'm not sure the ArbCom should get into policy making, even in response to polite
requests to do so. One of the clear problems of the reification (BADSITES as if there was
a well-defined thing out there, rather than just the usual Web slop of forums for people
getting things off their chests with improbable avatars) is that there is some assumption
that there _must be a policy_. There can't really be a policy about how junky really
junky junk has to be before people will be punished for linking to it. People who go
around the site linking to junk are being a nuisance anyway.
A 'policy' would, for the usual reasons, be applied by people saying the junky
junk they are linking to is not quite as junky junk as the policy specifies, and so
linking to it is somehow OK. That is not how good policy operates. Good policy has some
kernel that can generally be agreed (like 'civility helps'); and does not specify
(a list of acceptable insults along with a list of definitely unacceptable ones).
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam