Re: Dealing with ITS abuse
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 13:34:23, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > Are you saying that if someone communicates abusively in the BTS
> > publicly, they _shouldn't_ be publicly confronted about that at all?
>
> The goal of any communication from owner@ regarding abuse isn't
> confrontation, but correction and resumption of communication.
>
> > Two particular bug reports I was invovled in recently had repeated
> > abusive communication in them with no consequences that I could see
> > for the one communicating abusively.
>
> Why should there be consequences that you can see?
Let me answer you this way.
A man you work with is treating you badly. He often makes disrespectful
statements to you and others, and if you have any question for him he simply
ignores you and doesn't acknowledge your question. TThis goes on long enough
that there's clearly a problem, communication is clearly broken, so you report
the problem. The person you report it to has a private conversation with the
person being disrespectful towards you and others, but nothing seems to change
-- the behavior continues in the same way it did before.
Now the question: why would you need to know what consequences there were?
People need feedback. If from the point of view of the reporter the feedback
isn't working, then it begs the question of what the feedback was.
> Only in exceptional circumstances do we actually use the controls that
> we have, but when we do, only -private and the individual sanctioned are
> informed. Reporting individuals are informed that we have addressed their
> concerns, but not necessarily the manner in which it has been
> addressed.
I see.
> > I'm /not/ asking to know who got a "penalty flag" (I don't need to
> > know) -- but I and others /do/ have a need to know if those exist
> > and what they are. The only reason I've been looking at past events
> > was to /infer/ what penalties exist due to a lack of information.
>
> They exist. They are modified as necessary to fit a particular
> situation, and range from warnings to technical restrictions on
> communication to expulsion.
Hmm okay.
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
Reply to: