G'day John,
On 7/4/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
But as many of us have pointed out before, there's no reason a
looser-worded
policy or one based on the existing NPA policy would not achieve the
same
end.
What did you have in mind?
Steve Summit wrote:
"You claim that the blanket ban is acceptable because reasonable people can decide to make exceptions if necessary. But why go that route? Why not say that links -- to any site, anywhere -- which serve as attacks, are attacks, and are banned under NPA? Why not let reasonable people realize that this is a sufficient policy, that will disallow all the troublesome links just as effectively as the blanket ban would? What additional protective power is gained by proactively applying the blanket ban?"
For what it's worth, I'm with John and Steve S here, and I can't see what's wrong with their approach.
If someone links to WR maliciously, we deal with it as a personal attack ... and get all the benefits we would get from I Can't Believe It's Not BADSITES[0] and similar products. If someone finds one of those legitimate reasons to link to WR that Guy has been so scornful of, a links accordingly, we don't have a problem.
Why is this worse than banning all links to certain sites, exactly? Why can't we just muddle along as Steve S advocates?
[0] In the timeless words of Monty Python, "You try anything like that around here, and we'll cut your face!"