On Jan 8, 2016 2:21 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:15, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jan 8, 2016 1:58 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I notice you did not answer my question. I'll ask again: when you say "proven guilty" what exactly do you mean? > > > > I see you are going to nitpick here. So let clarify it. > > When we're talking about banning people as a result of their actions, we'd better be clear on the details, don't you think? > > > > If there is a clear set of evidences that someone harassed, insulted, attacked another person then it fits this definition. > > What to you would be "a clear set of evidences"? (If you have examples of actual occurrences, that would be better than building hypotheticals, and probably easier.) > > > > Please keep in mind than harassment, attacks or insults have nothing to do with opinions. > > Unfortunately, too many people confuse "argument" with "harassment", and "disagreement" with "attacks", and "observations" as "insults." So I'd like to hear first what "clear evidence" means to you.
This is what I mean by nitpicking. I am sure you perfectly understand my point as well as what I would consider as bad. Just in case, an opiniated hot discussion is not. I would appreciate a clear answer as well from your side and little less nitpicking. Do you consider than harassing/insulting and similar person should remain untouched? Or for extreme cases not banned?
