On 11/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
In cases like this, I think so. It reduces the lawyering that is involved with the whole "oh, sorry, two people didn't actually sign the top section, so we'll delete it" thing, it allows for better discussion as opposed to the wonky sloganeering of the "Users who certify this statement" thing, and everyone knows RfC is worthless for user conduct, so it has that stigma.
You realise of course all that came about for actual reason, and that's to keep it from becoming a venue for personal attack.
(c.f. a recent deleted RFC 'certified' by five people, only the first of whom could actually show they had tried to solve the dispute before the mudslinging match. No, that's not what it's for.)
WP:CN recently got taken to MFD for being a second port of abuse. No, you *don't* vote on banning people.
The main point of my idea is that there is a definite closing time and a definite result (even though that result has no direct effect on anything).
Yeah, that's definitely useful.
So how to not make it a troll magnet?
- d.