-----Original Message----- From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs@eskimo.com] What's debated is:
1. whether the attempt to minimize down to zero is worth the cost, and 2. whether removing links truly minimizes exposure in all cases.
_______________________________________________
And the obvious answer is of course not. Any policy must respect natural limits (not "go to zero") and imperfect results are to be expected. However, user who are being harassed should see efforts to reduce its frequency and impact, however ineffective in absolute terms such efforts are. Fred
On 21/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
And the obvious answer is of course not. Any policy must respect natural limits (not "go to zero") and imperfect results are to be expected. However, user who are being harassed should see efforts to reduce its frequency and impact, however ineffective in absolute terms such efforts are.
That's a sweet thought, but the problem (and the debate, and the arbcom case) is about when it becomes counterproductive and actively damaging to the actual project.
- d.
Fred Bauder wrote:
[Steve Summit wrote:] What's debated is:
- whether the attempt to minimize down to zero is worth the cost, and
- whether removing links truly minimizes exposure in all cases.
And the obvious answer is of course not. Any policy must respect natural limits (not "go to zero").
I'm glad you agree. But then the problem is that different people legitimately disagree on where those natural limits are, on when the law of diminishing returns has set in.
user who are being harassed should see efforts to reduce its frequency and impact, however ineffective in absolute terms such efforts are.
But some of also disagree that ineffective (or destructive) remedies are appropriate if all they are is empty shows of support. Heck, I bet there are even plenty of actual harassment victims who would reject that form of "support".