--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It has nothing to do with trusting the ArbCom. Disciplinary issues need to be kept separate from content issues. Otherwise the content will develop the appearance of being decided by a cabal. The disciplinary role is necessary, and dealing with problem characters often requires harsh measures. That mentality can too easily creep into other decisions.
I'm talking about the ArbCom deciding if a user has violated our content polices and guidelines. That is very much within the authority of the ArbCom. We have just moved slowly so far into enforcing those policies.
-- mav
__________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It has nothing to do with trusting the ArbCom. Disciplinary issues need to be kept separate from content issues. Otherwise the content will develop the appearance of being decided by a cabal. The disciplinary role is necessary, and dealing with problem characters often requires harsh measures. That mentality can too easily creep into other decisions.
I'm talking about the ArbCom deciding if a user has violated our content polices and guidelines. That is very much within the authority of the ArbCom. We have just moved slowly so far into enforcing those policies.
One then needs to be very careful to distinguish between a violation of content policies and the contents themselves. If something is just a guidleine there should be no enforceability involved. For some of us, "Ignore all rules" is still an important part of the rule set. The only problem with it is that it is rooted in the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules. Some of our colleagues have a great deal of difficulty with that distinction.
Ec