On Mon, 28 May 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
I seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here, despite a lot of head-scratching.
Myself neither.
So what is the disagreement about, in practice? Is it that one side wants a hard-line rule that can be imposed selectively?
I'll tell you what I've seen, since I've been arguing this for a while. One side thinks that attack site links may be removed 100% of the time, a zero tolerance policy. Another site thinks that attack site links are usually bad, but there may be rare circumstances where they are needed, and that they should be decided case by case.
The first side, however, has now moderated their rhetoric and sounds exactly like the second.
My impression is that the zero-tolerance side actually wants zero tolerance for certain particular web sites, and the Teresa Nielsen Hayden situation caught them by surprise. Thus, they now claim "we don't support zero tolerance" when the truth is that they don't care about TNH but still want zero tolerance for WR and ED.