Good explanation on why SI does have levels of tolerence to "Posters who thrive off confrontation" Anyone we know Leo? Ha!
Message 3407083
I'm wondering why can't the rules of service be more clearly defined and enforced by the management? Can you explain, Brad?
We strive to reach the happiest medium possible. Working on either extreme is impractical. We can't allow complete chaos, but at the same time we absolutely have to let the thread participants resolve/tolerate matters on their own. Let's say that 2% of all posts on SI are potential "violations" of a strict and clear policy.
Most of them will be open to interpretation, no matter how clear the policy is. In a single day, that works out to more than 200 posts that we would need to take a look at and judge within the context of a detailed set of cyberlaws. Of the "violators", 98% of the them will riably feel wronged, and feel compelled to debate the matter, find
support from friends, etc...You've probably noticed there are a lot of super-intelligent (Mr. Bean and Leo) and rebellious (Vanni Resta) people on this site, which makes for a lot of great interaction. I know my personal limitations, and I or Jill can't match wits with many of them. We certainly can't take on a hundred at once.
That's the practical constraint. On a more philosophical level, if we did manage to pull off the impossible and stomp out all controversy, would SI not lose a big source of its appeal?
=============================================
<Disclaimer> Certain names were added to this post for "Fun"! Always check the link for accuracy. If you no check it then tough shit bud!
Bean |
