|
|
123456
... 31
|
|
squaredancer wrote:
> On 29.11.2008 10:12, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter to
> generate the following:? :
>> »Q« wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:58:06 -0800
>>> Irwin Greenwald < [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response to a
>>>> personal attack.
>>>>
>>> I wouldn't be willing to try to distinguish between "justified"
>>> personal attacks and unjustified ones. I'd treat them all the same.
>>> (I put "justified" in quotes because I don't think there are any
>>> valid justifications for personal attacks.)
>>>
>>>
>>>> (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack
>>>> will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending
>>>> on this process.
>>>>
>>> Whether or not something is a personal attack would be a judgment
>>> call on our (me, Nir, Chris) part. I'm working under the assumption
>>> that at least two of us would have to agree that it's a personal attack
>>> before any action would be taken, though we haven't discussed that
>>> explicitly.
>>>
>>>
>> A personal attack should be quite obvious. Something like: "You're a
>> stupid idiot" is a personal attack. "That is a stupid idea." is not.
>> Casting aspersions on one's race, ethnic heritage, parentage, or even
>> the state of one's dress, certainly qualifies. Things like 'What can
>> you expect from a Kiwi?' are much harder to classify. Generally, I
>> would required that the comment be intended to annoy, or cause
>> discomfort,
>
>> rather than merely 'tweak' the other party in humor.
>
> problem with that one, Ron.... we all know just how much humor "one of"
> the designated moderators can cope with!
> NONE !
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> reg
Grin.
Now who would that be?
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
squaredancer wrote:
> On 29.11.2008 02:58, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused BJ to generate
> the following:? :
>> Regarding the thread titled: "[Poll]Should posts containing personal
>> attacks be removed?"
>>
>> On 11/28/08 2:30 PM, Chris Ilias's opinion was expressed:
>>
>>
>>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>>
>> Comment only: If you decide to remove "personal attacks", with a
>> warning or not, then you'd better define "personal attacks" PRECISELY.
>> Otherwise, you're going to get a lot of "Why was my post removed?" and
>> "But I didn't mean it that way", or "How can I violate a rule if it's
>> not even defined?" or . . . some such on this.
>>
>
> In *my opinion* - a personal attack _on me_ is something that *I* want
> to decide.
> If *I* am not offended by an attack upon *my person* - but someone else
> is.... why are they reading posts addressed to me??
>
> reg
>
>> <<snipped>>
>>
>
I believe that if you feel attacked, then you would have to complain, if
the moderators hadn't already taken action, which is why I think action
should be public.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
On 28.11.2008 22:30, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Chris Ilias to
generate the following:? :
<<snipped>>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
yes but:
ONLY on request of the attacked person
or
ONLY if the Group as an entity was insulted
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
Waste of space - the post stands and is public - what do you intend to
"warn against" ??
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
If the attacked person complains - delete the offensive part!
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
1) So - what is offensive - and to WHOM is it offensive??
THAT PERSON must request that the post be removed.
2) What will you do if I see a post (directed against me) that has been
removed - and *I* complain that I didn't consider it offensive
- will you re-post it ????
- will you hold to your point of view and "decide" on my behalf ????
The restriction implied by ChrisI doesn't hold any water at all:
QUOTE post from Q
but I think Chris already mentioned the most compelling one, that many
people in the groups don't know how to reach us to complain.
UNQUOTE
because those posters are HERE - in the groups, so they can lodge any
complaints (against an open attack) or requests for removal in the
(respective) group - as an "open" complaint!
Trouble with that though is, the moderators would have to READ the posts
- something in which both ChrisI and Nir are sorely lacking, both being
often absent for days (even weeks) on end, and Q has often said that he
reads "un-threaded", so that he sometimes has problems following some
threads!
<<snipped>>
reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
On 29.11.2008 15:20, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter to
generate the following:? :
> squaredancer wrote:
>
>> On 29.11.2008 10:12, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter to
>> generate the following:? :
>>
>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:58:06 -0800
>>>> Irwin Greenwald < [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response to a
>>>>> personal attack.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't be willing to try to distinguish between "justified"
>>>> personal attacks and unjustified ones. I'd treat them all the same.
>>>> (I put "justified" in quotes because I don't think there are any
>>>> valid justifications for personal attacks.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack
>>>>> will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending
>>>>> on this process.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Whether or not something is a personal attack would be a judgment
>>>> call on our (me, Nir, Chris) part. I'm working under the assumption
>>>> that at least two of us would have to agree that it's a personal attack
>>>> before any action would be taken, though we haven't discussed that
>>>> explicitly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A personal attack should be quite obvious. Something like: "You're a
>>> stupid idiot" is a personal attack. "That is a stupid idea." is not.
>>> Casting aspersions on one's race, ethnic heritage, parentage, or even
>>> the state of one's dress, certainly qualifies. Things like 'What can
>>> you expect from a Kiwi?' are much harder to classify. Generally, I
>>> would required that the comment be intended to annoy, or cause
>>> discomfort,
>>>
>>> rather than merely 'tweak' the other party in humor.
>>>
>> problem with that one, Ron.... we all know just how much humor "one of"
>> the designated moderators can cope with!
>> NONE !
>>
>> <<snipped>>
>>
>> reg
>>
> Grin.
> Now who would that be?
>
>
>
*lol*
pssssttttt - MTMM - pssssttttt
reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
On 11/29/2008 5:31 AM, Nir wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote, On 29/11/08 03:59:
>> On 11/28/2008 1:30 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> _Background_
>>> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
>>> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
>>> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
>>> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
>>> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>>>
>>>
>>> _Personal Attacks_
>>> The first rule of etiquette at
>>> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
>>> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
>>> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>>>
>>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>> No. If I find that someone is repeatedly offensive to me, I filter out
>> their messages. Currently, I have a filter for only one such person,
>> whose messages are marked as already read. (I also have filters against
>> spam and floods.)
>>
>>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>> Yes. Otherwise, how will someone learn to modify his or her behavior.
>
> Did you mean that such posts will be removed only if same person was
> warned previously for the same reason?
>
No. If the policy is to remove such posts, the person should be warned
that this is about to happen and why. Keeping records of past offences
-- warn now and delete on a repeat -- is too much of a burden.
However, something might be misinterpreted by the moderator. A warning
should give the person who posted the message an opportunity to justify
what was written.
--
David E. Ross
< http://www.rossde.com/>
Go to Mozdev at < http://www.mozdev.org/> for quick access to
extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other
Mozilla-related applications. You can access Mozdev much
more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
I find this poll offensive, and think it should be removed.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
JM wrote:
>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No
Yes
>>
>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
No
>>
>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
Yes
>>
>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>
>>
Sorry about the last post, I accidentally hit send before I was done.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) YES
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) YES
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No ) YES AFTER ORIGINATOR HAS BEEN ASKED TO REMOVE THE PERSONAL ATTACK
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Ron Hunter wrote:
> squaredancer wrote:
>> On 29.11.2008 02:58, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused BJ to
>> generate the following:? :
>>> Regarding the thread titled: "[Poll]Should posts containing personal
>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>
>>> On 11/28/08 2:30 PM, Chris Ilias's opinion was expressed:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>>>
>>> Comment only: If you decide to remove "personal attacks", with a
>>> warning or not, then you'd better define "personal attacks" PRECISELY.
>>> Otherwise, you're going to get a lot of "Why was my post removed?" and
>>> "But I didn't mean it that way", or "How can I violate a rule if it's
>>> not even defined?" or . . . some such on this.
>>>
>>
>> In *my opinion* - a personal attack _on me_ is something that *I* want
>> to decide.
>> If *I* am not offended by an attack upon *my person* - but someone
>> else is.... why are they reading posts addressed to me??
>>
>> reg
>>
>>> <<snipped>>
>>>
>>
> I believe that if you feel attacked, then you would have to complain
oh good grief, I can just see it now: the newsgroups
are going to be flooded with postings from people
complaining
--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public
Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
I started by reading thread, then decided its not as helpful to me here ;-)
Chris Ilias wrote:
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
Yes
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
(Other)
Send an e-mail containing removed post to offender (*IFF* they have a
valid e-mail address, no de-obfuscating should be required by
moderator/bot).
Include "If you feel this was in error please reply to: <at least 2
people who act as moderators here>, explaining why"
Etc.
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
YES, but if included with the above auto/manual reply. (This will allow
someone to trim out the attack and repost) also can include a note: "If
this reply contained on-topic information, feel free to repost just
without the personal attack" or some such.
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
We need to inform the user why he won't see his post, and provide a
reference of what the post was. (and include escalation methods if there
was an error)
Though I also feel completely removing post is 100% good on first
offense here, as personal attacks get ugly fast, and quickly derail threads.
I also assume this poll was strictly for support groups. [Though I would
not mind if it was all of news.mozilla.org]
--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
squaredancer wrote:
> On 28.11.2008 22:30, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Chris Ilias to
> generate the following:? :
>
> <<snipped>>
>> _Personal Attacks_
>> The first rule of etiquette at
>> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
>> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we
>> don't have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to
>> know is:
>>
>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>>
> yes but:
> ONLY on request of the attacked person
> or
> ONLY if the Group as an entity was insulted
>
>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>>
>
> Waste of space - the post stands and is public - what do you intend to
> "warn against" ??
>
>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>>
>
> If the attacked person complains - delete the offensive part!
>
>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>
>
> 1) So - what is offensive - and to WHOM is it offensive??
> THAT PERSON must request that the post be removed.
> 2) What will you do if I see a post (directed against me) that has been
> removed - and *I* complain that I didn't consider it offensive
> - will you re-post it ????
> - will you hold to your point of view and "decide" on my behalf ????
>
> The restriction implied by ChrisI doesn't hold any water at all:
>
> QUOTE post from Q
> but I think Chris already mentioned the most compelling one, that many
> people in the groups don't know how to reach us to complain.
> UNQUOTE
>
> because those posters are HERE - in the groups, so they can lodge any
> complaints (against an open attack) or requests for removal in the
> (respective) group - as an "open" complaint!
> Trouble with that though is, the moderators would have to READ the posts
> - something in which both ChrisI and Nir are sorely lacking, both being
> often absent for days (even weeks) on end, and Q has often said that he
> reads "un-threaded", so that he sometimes has problems following some
> threads!
>
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> reg
face it: according to whats been said so far, if you
want to send a personal attack to someone, then do it
from Google Groups.
--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public
Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Justin Wood (Callek)-2
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
> We need to inform the user why he won't see his post, and provide a
> reference of what the post was. (and include escalation methods if there
> was an error)
so, what you're suggesting is that all postings go
through a moderator before its posted.
imo: at the rate they're going now, I think that option
will be just around the corner.
--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public
Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Background_
>
SNIP
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
NO
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
[NO]
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
NO
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
Personal attacks are rude and can be very annoying for everyone. But
I've never seen one here that made the attacker look anything other than
an idiot. So I'd let them stay in the list as a warning to would-be
attackers - "Don't look as dumb as the last guy!" I could change my
mind if list regulars / mods were telling us that something over, say,
5% of all message had personal attacks in them. But my - limited -
experience here is that they are few and far between.
AGB
[Personal - I've probably posted 5 or so technical queries per year
here, for the last 5 years or so. But I'm a "visitor" not a "regular"
or a "contributor"]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
Yes - personal attacks should be removed.
--
Rev Robert M Jones, Wimborne Baptist Church, UK
http://www.wimborne-baptist.org.ukFree trial of Mailwasher Pro - effective email spam filter - (commission
goes to our partners in Bulgaria)
http://fta.firetrust.com/index.cgi?id=420_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 7:17 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
> Intent is always important. If you are driving down the street, and the
> steering on your car breaks, and you run onto the sidewalk, and hit a
> pedestrian, is that the same as seeing said pedestrian, and steering
> into him, intentionally? One is a terrible accident, the other is
> attempted murder.
In your example, and I agree that "One is a terrible accident, the other
is attempted murder." IF intent can be demonstrated clearly and "Intent
is always important", what if the driver claimed that the steering
malfunctioned? And what about if a mechanic found that the steering
indeed was broken, but also said it could have been broken AFTER the
incident BY the driver? Or even more plausible, it could have been
broken by the accident itself . . . but the mechanic couldn't determine
WHEN the steering was broken. Then how could you establish that the
driver INTENDED to hit the pedestrian? He may have (and the steering
broke anyway), or he may not have. That's the slippery slope that I'm
speaking of.
Words are not as clear as a broken steering wheel, and even a broken
steering wheel may not reveal intent.
> Did you know that you can be convicted of attempted murder of a person,
> even if that person happened to be dead already? All based on intent,
> and action.
As judged by a jury of 12, which may take some time evaluating
circumstantial evidence, which would not be even remotely similar to
three moderators making a decision in much less time on what may be
flimsy evidence.
I think "intent" in the case of personal attacks in postings is much
less clear than it might be in your example.
If "intent" is included in the criteria for determining if it's a
personal attack, my point is, in many cases it's difficult, if not
impossible or entirely arbitrary, to determine intent. And personal
attack intent in a posting is much less evident than something like your
example which may leave physical evidence.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 7:13 AM, Jay Garcia's opinion was expressed:
> My suggestion:
>
> In the support groups, a personal attack may be as simple as "you're an
> idiot" and subject to interpretation. If the perceived personal attack
> escalates to a rebutal with another personal attack leveled at the
> original attacker it then becomes OFF TOPIC and there is already a
> mechanism in place for dealing with OT posts. IMHO there is no need to
> over-police the groups.
Echo on that suggestion.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 1:26 PM, BJ's opinion was expressed:
> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 7:13 AM, Jay Garcia's opinion was expressed:
>
>> My suggestion:
>>
>> In the support groups, a personal attack may be as simple as "you're an
>> idiot" and subject to interpretation. If the perceived personal attack
>> escalates to a rebutal with another personal attack leveled at the
>> original attacker it then becomes OFF TOPIC and there is already a
>> mechanism in place for dealing with OT posts. IMHO there is no need to
>> over-police the groups.
>
> Echo on that suggestion.
>
Because it eliminates the need to do any definition, including the
nebulous "intent" component, of personal attack.
The elegant solution here just uses an already established policy.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 10:26 AM, Tarkus's opinion was expressed:
> I find this poll offensive, and think it should be removed.
Nice backhanded way to show that personal attacks as defined by the
perception of the attacked is VERY ARBITRARY and can actually be used as
a tool for "getting back" at someone you don't like. If ever there were
a flimsy standard, this is one. It can be abused itself.
And then the moderators would find themselves in the middle of a dispute
over whether a "perceived" personal attack complaint itself was a
personal attack. Talk about things spiraling out of control.
I think Jay's suggestion earlier about using the Off Topic policy to
avoid the whole situation here and still eliminate personal attacks
indirectly is the way to go.
I would think the moderators would embrace this as a method to avoid
interminable disputes and still achieve the goal of eliminating personal
attacks.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
123456
... 31
|
Locked
