actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
Shall we say one abuse per month per sysop, use it strategically?
Perhaps you could show me where that came from in "absent a pattern of abuse" ?
That comes from making excuses such as "being human" and he was "baited", which look quite reusable, since sysops will still be human in the future and may be "baited" again. However, it wasn't just your statement, but the general sense of "deference" to other sysops. The sysop community should act as checks and balances upon each other, quickly correcting questionable actions. Their job is protect the community, not just from disruptive behavior below, but from abuses by each other. -- Silverback
While I agree with that, I disagree that much change needs to be made to the sysop policy. I don't know much about the crux of this dispute, but I don't see any problems with sysops abusing their powers. Obviously those who believe in the cabal and/or enjoy nitpicking every mistake a sysop makes would disagree, but I feel that the only thing wrong with our dispute resolution now is the speed of arbitration, which is apparenlty being corrected even as I type. Furthermore, "one abuse per month" would formalise the possibility of sysops blocking people for frivolous reasons while still not accounting for genuine mistakes. I personally think overly specific regulations like these are ridiculous and open too many loopholes, but that's just me.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])