On Jan 4, 2016 10:00 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:31, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote: > > > > Huge +1 to this for the reasons stated both by Eli about why it should > > exist, and the reasons mentioned by Ferenc in that it's not giving out new > > powers, but adding accountability to the use of those powers. I do think > > however there is some fine tuning that could be done. > > > > 1) When a summary report is posted, the offender should be given the > > The "offender"? Not "the accused", not "the alleged offender", not "the presumed innocent until proven guilty", but "the offender". *This* is why the RFC is awful, horrible, anti-free-speech, etc. It abides no concept of liberty to speak. > > The RFC is virtue-signaling for a particular political persuasion, and nothing more. > > It does serve one useful purpose: to help identify who wants to be an authoritarian and shut down speech from others.
Not really. I also chafe at the egregious "offender" language, but I do not share your contempt for this RFC. I am in fact +1. Every long standing collaborative system adopts, uses, and sheds rules of conduct to suit its real and perceived challenges. We're in the adoption stage, after shedding Rasmus' quick rules that Ferenc referenced. I feel there are good things in this RFC, and certainly some details that need refinement. Constructive, desenting input is neccesary to sharpen the instrument from its blunt, rough form. Bring it on.
