On 12/16/2017 10:14 AM, Nils Freydank wrote: > Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017, 23:41:45 CET schrieb kuzetsa: >> On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote: >>> 5. Reasons for warnings and bans >>> -------------------------------- >> --snip-- >> >>> c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row >>> d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated >>> questions >>> >>> (constant means more than two times in a row) >> Point #c versus #d >> >> #c - there can (and often are) good faith reasons for >> multiple postings "in a row", such as when responding >> to multiple threads, and/or to multiple posters within >> the same thread. Even just people who are awake (and >> would respond) at a time when other participants in the >> list would be sleeping could complicate this rule. > Valid point. > >> #d - definition for constant seems unnecessary. For an >> alternative, maybe refine the definition to either >> use a 72 hour window or similar, or even just a basic >> expectation for discussion to be germane (on-topic) >> with refusal to stay on-topic (when warned) being the >> measure. Perhaps three strikes (per day?) are when >> the enforcement could start. parliament / congress >> and other formal assemblies have models for this. > Sounds good to me. As spamming is *always* off topic > this should even catch point c). > > Could you write a short paragraph for this?
Haven't been paying much attention to this thread. (I was quoted here - Point #c versus #d) Am I being asked to write something up? Clarification would be appreciated. - kuzetsa
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
