Ray wrote:
What might be an interesting approach when accusations are made would
be
to have the promoter of a failed accusation serve the same fate that
he
sought to have applied on the accused. Thus if he seeks to have
someone
de-sysopped and fails he would be de-sysopped; if seeks to have the person banned for a month and fails he would be banned for a month.
etc.
It might put an end to all the whining. ;-)
Now I don't know if Eclecticology was kind of joking around here, but if so it sounds like what we hackers call "ha, ha, only serious".
I would be happy to adopt such a system and I volunteer myself as a test case. I thought a Blocking War should be stopped with temp desysopping, but the community said, "No." All right, de-sysop me for the same period of time (1.5 hours). Shucks, go whole hog and de-sysop 1.5 hours for EACH of the 4 users I de-opped. Let's see how the math works out for that:
4 x 1.5 = 6
Okay, de-sysop me for 6 hours. I can handle that.
Now for a more serious example. I'm on the verge of giving William Connolley or X a one-hour time-out for violating the "No personal remarks" rule. If the arbcom reviews my block and decides I was wrong, I got blocked and/or de-sysopeed for the same period of time. Fine with me!! I'll take the chance.
I think a lot of people would applaud a Sheriff who "puts his money where his mouth is".
Uncle Ed <=== Just rented "Hang 'Em High" last week
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Ray wrote:
What might be an interesting approach when accusations are made would be
to have the promoter of a failed accusation serve the same fate that he
sought to have applied on the accused. Thus if he seeks to have someone
de-sysopped and fails he would be de-sysopped; if seeks to have the person banned for a month and fails he would be banned for a month. etc.
It might put an end to all the whining. ;-)
Now I don't know if Eclecticology was kind of joking around here, but if so it sounds like what we hackers call "ha, ha, only serious".
Perhaps there was only limited seriousness on that point. The urge to whine is bound to come out in other ways.
I would be happy to adopt such a system and I volunteer myself as a test case. I thought a Blocking War should be stopped with temp desysopping, but the community said, "No." All right, de-sysop me for the same period of time (1.5 hours). Shucks, go whole hog and de-sysop 1.5 hours for EACH of the 4 users I de-opped. Let's see how the math works out for that:
4 x 1.5 = 6
Okay, de-sysop me for 6 hours. I can handle that.
For you we could even make that effective at midnight in your local time zone.
Now for a more serious example. I'm on the verge of giving William Connolley or X a one-hour time-out for violating the "No personal remarks" rule. If the arbcom reviews my block and decides I was wrong, I got blocked and/or de-sysopeed for the same period of time. Fine with me!! I'll take the chance.
The real problem is not with those seeking momentary 1-hour timeouts, but with those that are seeking punishments that are out of proportion to the situation. A remedial philosophy of criminal law would seek to achieve a balance of rights. Punishment that is rooted in revenge, or that is used to impose a POV does not accomplish this.
I think a lot of people would applaud a Sheriff who "puts his money where his mouth is".
Yep, but when dealing with a two-bit whore who is only putting her money where her month is, you would probably agree that she should have the same treatment as the owner of the McMadam chain.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I think a lot of people would applaud a Sheriff who "puts his money where his mouth is".
Yep, but when dealing with a two-bit whore who is only putting her money where her month is, you would probably agree that she should *not* have the same treatment as the owner of the McMadam chain.
Ec
little correction - Ec