On 7/2/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What I'm saying is, intentions are good, but by their fruits ye shall know
them. The consistent implementation of this principle you, SlimVirgin and to
a lesser extent Fred Bauder have been advocating has consistently resulted
in abuses.
What consistency? One example, quickly contained. As I said, I've seen
people doing sweeping removals of links to specific sites for all
sorts of reasons, they don't need a strawman policy for justification.
Now, if this was the only way to achieve the result we
all want -
banning links made for the purpose of personal attacks or to otherwise harm
an editor - then I'd be okay with it.
But as many of us have pointed out before, there's no reason a looser-worded
policy or one based on the existing NPA policy would not achieve the same
end.
What did you have in mind?
But when people have consistently exhibited a lack of
the common sense
required to apply this, and there is an alternative proposal which can
achieve virtually the same results without relying on people having the
common sense to know what is banned by this blanket and what is not, why
should we not go for the alternative?
What consistent exhibitions of a "lack of common sense" have you seen?