On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:21:17PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > I disagree on the point of not making the ban durations public. Although > I understand the effect you're afraid of, I think that the benefits of > having the durations public outweigh the downsides: even if the banned > persons could try to trick the system, that would be easily detected I > think. Also, most of the effects of the ban are social, not technical. Right. > The ban durations should be made public (and very much communicated to > the banned person) because that gives a dimension to the punishment, you > can then get "short" or "long" bans, depending on how far you crossed > the line. An offender could first get a short ban, and when coming back, > if crossing the line again, a longer ban (exponentially). The only limit > to that would be the listmasters' patience. So, what would be the beneficial social effects of publishing the ban *duration*? I can't see any of that. The main beneficial effect we're looking for is sending the message that bad behavior on Debian mailing lists is not tolerated "here, see what happens when you post nasty messages like those?". To have this effect you don't need to disclose ban duration. (Of course, the banned person should be made aware of the ban duration, but I'm sure that's already the case.) -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature