On 7/4/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
them. The consistent implementation of this
principle you, SlimVirgin
a lesser extent Fred Bauder have been advocating
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.
One example? I can think of a lot more than just the Teresa Nielsen Hayden
case. Links to "attack sites" have been removed from the Signpost in the
past, and people like Dan Tobias have been aggressively highlighting them on
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
an editor - then I'd be okay with it.
But as many of us have pointed out before, there's no reason a
policy or one based on the existing NPA policy
would not achieve the
What did you have in mind?
Steve Summit wrote:
"You claim that the blanket ban is acceptable because reasonable
people can decide to make exceptions if necessary. But why go
that route? Why not say that links -- to any site, anywhere --
which serve as attacks, are attacks, and are banned under NPA?
Why not let reasonable people realize that this is a sufficient
policy, that will disallow all the troublesome links just as
effectively as the blanket ban would? What additional protective
power is gained by proactively applying the blanket ban?"
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?