actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum(a)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]])