In article <3a52785b@news.povray.org>, "Scott Hill" 
<sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote:
>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.

More importantly, if one or two people can shut down the discussion, the 
group can never succeed. The world is a pretty big place; if it only 
takes one person for something on-line to fail, that something is too 
flawed to succeed. There's always one person.

>Reply directly, email the poster or just ignore the lot - it's your 
>choice and that's the only way a community like this can operate - 
>only you, yourself, can effectively police what you read here and 
>no-one is forcing you to reply, however when you do decide to reply to 
>a post, remember,

I already posted here once how I think "kill files" should be renamed 
"interests and disinterests" to make people more willing to use them. 
But yeah, unless the reader takes responsibility for what they read in 
some manner, a single poster can bring the system down.

I never had any problem in p.o.t. The so-called "flamewars" (they 
weren't) never took more than two or three lines in my newsreader unless 
I specifically chose to read them.

Jerry
-- 
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/Murder/)

Post a reply to this message