"Scott Hill" <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote :
>
>     1, I'd pretty much been ignoring the whole M.G. thing, did things in
> really escalate _so far_ in p.o-t that it called for such draconian
> measures?

    No. His use of the word "Dimocrat" seems to be the triggering event, but
the purported offence was his sigs which had been pretty much ignored for
months before. Who knows what happened?

>     2, Why such a draconian approach ? Warn anyone the abuses the groups
and
> then ban them if necessary, but penalising everyone for one or two peoples
> bad behaviour just pisses everyone off and merely shifts the problem.

    Agreed. If the policy says something then the policy should be
followed -first-, then if more drastic measures are required go there.

>     3, I'm glad to see that p.o-t is returning, a forum as popular and as
> eclectic as ours needs somewhere like p.o-t for exactly the reasons that,
> IIRC, the news admins stated when p.o-t was first set up - Threads going
> 'off-topic' is inevitable within this type of 'community forum', and
they're
> an important part of keeping such a forum alive, without p.o-t all the
other
> groups (particularly p.general) get clogged up with this banter.

    Again, agreed. The "community of POV happens in OT more than otherwise.
Sometimes communities get stressfull, but that is what a community is like.
Learn to live with it here or you can't live with it anywhere.

> Flame wars cannot and do not turn in infernos without someone
> feeding or fanning the flames.

    POT has -never- had a flame war. Nothing even close. The closest we have
had was Mosl claiming that everyone but he was a "moron hypocrits" (sic).

> only you,
> yourself, can effectively police what you read here and no-one is forcing
> you to reply,

    Nothing could be more relevant to the issue.

Post a reply to this message