-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Phroziac wrote:
That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
On 7/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal for a new policy:
- User does something stupid -> User is warned.
- User does something stupid -> User is warned, pointed to relevant
policy pages. 3. User does something stupid -> User is blocked for 12 hours (which will most likely be overnight), pointed to relevant policy pages.
At stage 3 (that is, third act of stupidity) some software changes are required. Namely:
- Editing restriction to user's talk page (and *possibly* subpages of
their user_talk page)
- Edit link is automagically changed into View Source, but visiting an
&action=edit page will still reset the block
<snip>
There are two problems I see at present. The first one is ignorance - the "How was I supposed to know I wasn't allowed to do that?" defence. Yes, the user should probably be pointed to policy pages on the first warning.
My present way of dealing with the clueless is:
if(!user.welcomed) { assumeGoodFaith(); welcomeUser(); } else if(!user.warned) { assumeGoodFaith(); warnUser(); } else { warnUser(); }
The second problem has been outlined in a message just in...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \