Re: Frequent abusers (Re: [ga-abuse] Jeff Williams)

[Bruce James <bmj@keyname.net>]

Harald:

    You have some valid points listed below.

I also thought that a single list suspension would work. The idea is sound,
but the implementation would be a great deal of work trying to keep track of
*who*was suspended from which list, for how long, would very hard for us to
keep straight.

I am now inclined to have a "One suspension to cover all Lists". My hope is
that our offenders will understand that a posting made in *haste* will cost
them more than just a single suspension from a given list.

I want it to cost a person, his/her *full* posting rights, so they will not
do it over and over. This should be made VERY clear in a *Warning* sent to
an offender.

I really think this is a better way to handle persons who choose to react in
an unprofessional manor and it will make *our* job easier. ( I am very
lazy)...:)


/Bruce
"It is often better not to see an insult than to avenge it."
- Seneca


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: "Bruce James" <bmj@keyname.net>
Cc: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>; "[ga-abuse]"
<ga-abuse@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:24
Subject: Re: Frequent abusers (Re: [ga-abuse] Jeff Williams)


At 09:40 01.05.2001 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
> >>Given that we are one management team, I would suggest that we take it
on
>ourselves that once a troublemaker is suspended at least from the GA list
>and 2 sublists, we can block him from all GA lists.<<
>
>I think the above may be too much work.
>
>Let me say, after I have thought about this problem,  I think a *total*
list
>ban will be the best way to go.

If (for instance) I become vehement in a discussion on alternate root, I
think that it may not be reasonable or profit the GA to block me from
contributing calmly to a discussion on voting rules for the GA.

Note that due to the technical implementation of the lists, filters have to
be applied to each of the lists separately anyway.