[ga] Re:Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

[Bruce James <bmj@keyname.net>]

I feel a simple warning to *all* would be a good choice of action.

Mr. WXW has created his own bed of bad behavior, the two weeks off should
serve him well and be enforced.

His further postings on the ga-full list do not show any remorse, but have
only gone down hill in proper list decorum. IMHO.

/Bruce


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>
To: "Ga" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings


|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Sotiris
|> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:38 PM
|> To: david@farrar.com
|> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for
|> mass postings
|>
|>
|> To be fair, I think the lot of them should be suspended
|> along with William.
|> Everyone on the list courtesy of DPF *know* that there is
|> a 5 post limit. <SNIP>

I certainly agree that any such rule when applied should be applied to
all who have broken the rule.  Now if we look at those who have broken
the rule even if only taken into account posts since the beginning of
the year, the list is impressive. I personally appear to have exceeded
5 posts twice this year.  You, Soltiris, from my records, have
exceeded 5 posts a day on 6 different days since the beginning of the
year.  The list of offenders is large.

This raises some questions and points to ponder.

Point 1.  Is any rule valid when it is not applied consistently.
Point 2. Should additional warnings be sent to offenders before
consideration is given to impose penalties.
Point 3. Posting limit rules are to cut down on traffic, should not
any cc and bcc addresses on any posts count as multiples.  The habit
of cc'ing both to the list and to the person addressed means the post
is sent twice to person cc'd.  Unless this is taken into
consideration, the posting limit is not effective in achieving the
stated goals.
Point 4. I have documented evidence of other offenders that infringed
the 5 post rule on a frequent basis since February 2000, should not
such a rule be applied objectively and no other criteria used outside
of the rule in its invocation.
Point 5. Should the GA consider posting participant posting statistics
on a weekly basis with warnings for any who are over the limit and if
they transgress at any time in the following two weeks, the penalties
automatically imposed?  Perhaps an automatic script to achieve this so
no human intervention is necessary to improve objective application of
the rule.

Just a few things for the list to mull over.

Personally, I will abide by any rules imposed by the group that are
applied in a consistent and appropriate manner.  I question rules that
appear to be applied in an unfair manner.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html