Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 7:30 pm
It is offensive to block access to content that is of direct concern to a person. For a long time, Wikipediocracy has hosted extensive and very personal attacks on people who are banned, so they can't see it. Recently, Graaf Statler was apparently prohibited from posting on WPO, but was allowed to be merely muted, and he did just post (harmlessly, to be sure, with a nice New Years' greeting). it is a mark of respect for the general community to respect people, and if they post offensively, to warn them and to take minimal action as needed to maintain public order. Like Wikipedia, the WPO community does not know the middle ground, but dismisses people as trolls or useless garbage all too easily. This software allows private warnings.
I very much doubt that Strelnikov would be a disruptive user, needing little more than warning, if that.
Here on Sucks, at least of late, we have only banned for egregious disregard of moderation warnings. We are not going to ban anyone merely for criticizing us. After all, we are Critics and don't Critics Suck? But . . . if someone begins to flood the Forum with personal attack or other garbage, and persists in spite of warning, yes, we will ban. For minor cases, a short block, I expect, that's been recent practice.
I very much doubt that Strelnikov would be a disruptive user, needing little more than warning, if that.
Here on Sucks, at least of late, we have only banned for egregious disregard of moderation warnings. We are not going to ban anyone merely for criticizing us. After all, we are Critics and don't Critics Suck? But . . . if someone begins to flood the Forum with personal attack or other garbage, and persists in spite of warning, yes, we will ban. For minor cases, a short block, I expect, that's been recent practice.