Re: [ga-abuse] Re: Frequent abusers

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

At 04:38 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote on 01.05.01, 17:21:21:
> >>They cause the trouble in the first place !!  They should ALL be suspended.
>
> > I do not think we can administer "just" moderation through suspending
> > someone on general principles; we need the complaint, and need to agree
> > that this complaint is worthwhile to receive a sanction.
>
>I strongly agree. The list monitor mechanism is currently
>designed in a way that complaints from outside the team
>trigger a monitor team reaction. We can and should not bend
>the rules in a way that everything taken as provocation
>receives a sanction. Some people are evidently provoked
>by most everything Dave Crocker or Kent Crispin say, but
>this goes the other way around as well. To avoid judging
>people using our personal standards, we should focus on
>the individual complaints (obviously taking into account
>patterns of behaviour) and adhere to the standards in the
>list rules.
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander

Yes, I agree.  We need to be completely subjective & I'd better not send 
Kent any notes this month since I tipped off the BOA to anal probe the 
company he works for... He might a - , be a little extra upset with me; but 
he is the one who chose to slander... And I didn't use our list to handle 
my complaint - I went to the horse and the horse can communicate with his 
company as it deems appropriate; but the general feel is that he is being 
paid to be an expert in the field and should monitor his comments much more 
closely.  I did not realize at the time, that I could complain against him 
for slandering a party other than myself to our group as I do now.  And 
yet, I'm happy to get CPA's involved in the process because they are 
usually so logical...