<P>Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:<BR>>Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably <BR>>did not either understand that the vote was about <BR>>bannings. If that is what the vote is about and not <BR>>just a guideline. <BR><BR>Guidelines and rules to consider become policy when broad-based <BR>consensus is reached on those items. Breaking polices have consequences. The 24 hour time-out was proposed and it is up to Jimbo to decree this remedy for <BR>breaking this policy.<BR><BR>-- mav</P>
<P>-------</P>
<P>So, the consensus is currently not clearly in favor either of a guideline nor of a rule. <BR>The poll indicated "do you agree with this as a guideline"<BR>Unfortunately, some people voted for that proposition "as a rule".</P>
<P>Should we take care of opinion of people who voted under the wrong header ? :-)</P>
<P>Second...there is nowhere in that poll, indicated that<BR>voting "yes I agree for a 3 revert rule as a guideline"<BR>meant "yes, ban the user after 3 reverts".</P>
<P>Since that is not indicated, here is what I remember I voted for <BR>voting "Yes, I agree for a 3 revert rules as a guideline"<BR>meant "yes, protect this page from this user after 3 reverts for 24 hours".</P>
<P>I like this option. The community will decree this is a good option.</P>
<P>For more on the proposition, look at the bottom of the 3 reverts page in question :-)</P><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! Search - <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/?fr=ad-mailsig-home">Find what you’re looking for faster.</a>