On 7 Jan 2016 20:59, "Chase Peeler" <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:44 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:39, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:27 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:25, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > To give clear answers, I need clear statements. For example, if a > > person *claims* harassment, what to you would be *evidence* of that > > harassment? This is not nitpicking; this is defining the terms of the > > conversation. If you are unable to clarify, that's cool, just say so. > > > > > > > > I think you are playing. > > > > > > I have never been more serious. This RFC, if passed, is going to have > > wide-ranging consequences, and if the terms in it are so vague as to give > > open-ended powers to those charged with enforcing it, I think that's a > > dangerous thing. > > > > > > So again: 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.) > > > > > > And again, if you are unable to clarify this, I'm OK with that. I get > > that it's messy. > > > > It is not. To me to distinguish harassment vs hot discussions (public or > > private) is part of common sense and I trust us to have this common sense > > when this group will be created. > > > > Also the very definition of harassment is pretty clear. Read > > http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment for the > > reference. > > If it is not clear for you then yes, I cannot make it clearer. Sorry. > > > > I do not think we need to build up our own definition because some thinks > > we will abuse powers. > > > > " the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of > one party or a group, including threats and demands." > > Nothing in the definition beyond that is exclusionary. It includes various > examples, but does not limit it beyond that. To me, "unwanted or annoying > actions" probably describes how a lot of people feel about Paul's comments > (I'm not one of them). Does that make him guilty of harassment? >
Paul has switched to constructively participating in the discussion. He is also not singling out any group or person for unwanted or annoying actions. So no, he is not guilty of harassment. Was that answer you were looking for?
