On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The supporters of BADSITES talk sweet reason, but every time they *act* upon the idea they act like rabid killbots on crack. Surely you can see this introduces scepticism, and is also why many of us have profound scepticism of the idea. The attempt to abuse an RFA to try to backdoor in an utterly failed bad policy proposal is disgraceful.
That isn't even remotely what's happening, David. First, I haven't seen anyone who supports the removal of these links going around removing them in any systematic way, never mind like "rabid killbots on crack."
The last go-round, when the policy's supporters were removing Daniel Brandt's links from the Signpost article about Daniel Brandt. The go-round before that, when they were removing the names of sites from the discussions.
This is why the policy failed: how it was actually carried out in testing.
Please don't keep raising the issue of BADSITES. It was started by a strawman sock for the purpose of stirring it. Please don't do his job for him.
I dislike BADSITES because of the way it's been implemented every time it's been put into practice. Or is that the trolls deleting the links?
BADSITES had existed in spirit for about 18 months and had been practised without fuss for the most part. Then a troll turned up and decided to write it down, and cleverly chose a shortcut that in itself would make most people cringe. The troll's concept was that the best way to get rid of a law you don't like is to enforce it rigorously.
Any rule applied without common sense is going to get a bad name -- but as you say, it's the application that's at fault, not the basic idea. I'm arguing here against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.