NDKilla Wrote:I feel the need to point out that they aren't dictating policy. We've talked about NPA policies before and the extent to which one exists will be up to the community as usual, not Amanda. Me and Reception (and others) have been talking about such a policy long before Amanda proposed one.The timing of presenting it is very bad, then. As is the content - it looks like everything that LP/Amanda wants is in there.
NDKilla Wrote:Personally I think it should be up to Stewards or Meta admins to actually remove attacks, but Amanda and anyone else should feel free to point out attacks to local and global users with the proper authority.Which is what we have now, correct?
NDKilla Wrote:Also, John did not cave into demands and threats of spam. Like him and most of the staff had said since the user initially made the ban, they were banned by the community and could appeal to the community. John merely created a proposal that got decent support, and the RfC was closed by Southparkfan.Amanda/LP was blocked/banned/whatever and the abuse started. John writes a proposal that lets Amanda/LP post again and the abuse disappears. What conclusion are we supposed to draw?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012