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

[Sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

If it means that I must be punished as well, then so be it!  But the
subversive activities (even if they're not intentional) must be stopped
here and now.  I will gladly take the suspension verdict against myself
Darryl, even though I am unaware of any abuse reports against me to the
List Monitor.  This ML must not be allowed to go the way of the IDNO ML.
It sickens me to constantly hear the reply: "But so and so is not being
punished, why should so and so be punished then?"  Well, how about TO
RESTORE LIST ORDER?  I think it would go a long way towards bringing
things back into focus if the suspensions were carried out against all the
offenders (yes, including myself!).  Now, who has a problem with that?
Sooner or later the rules must be applied, because they have not been so
to date does not mean they should never be...  Examples have to be made
(and remade if necessary!).

Best Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----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@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