On Jan 8, 2016 2:58 AM, "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
To me absolutely not. It is a hot debate, at best. Now, as an example, if he would start to message privately, aggressively, and would continue to do so after I asked him to stop, then yes, at some point I will consider it as such.
