--- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
Is there anyone on this list with serious objections
to short (12hr or
24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the
objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.
I would support that. As is, our no personal attacks policy has little by way
of teeth to it.
The only problem, and this is a big one, is what constitutes a personal attack?
Use of profanity in a provocative way is an obvious criteria, but there are
*many* ways a person can demean another person without resorting to base
language.
What do you do when you come across a complete piece of trash article or edit?
Criticizing something like that, even when it is justified, may be seen as a
personal attack by the author.
So we must tread a fine line here due to the subjective nature of the offense.
RfC may be a way for the community to quickly decide the less than clear cases.
A short term poll could be held on someone's RfC page to see whether or not
that person violated the 'no personal attacks' policy. If <75% agree, then
that
person gets blocked for a small period of time (24hrs to a week; anything
longer would need an ArbCom ruling).
Obviously safeguards will need to be developed to minimize abuse. Otherwise mob
rule will be used to punish merely unpopular users - Hemlock anybody?
I understand
that
temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but,
ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down
before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.
This is one thing we're trying to get better with!
We could lower the vote threshold for temp injunctions. My original idea was to
use the same criteria we use to open and close cases - just 4 yes votes needed.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail