Oh, dont be so absolutist. Youve been here long enough
to remember how thin support for 3RR originally was
(and for good reason). If the rule is infallible, what
actually confirms this --ie. reviews and corrects the
rules when they are not? I cant go around filing
Arbcom cases for every sysop whom I think is acting
like a jerk in enforcing "da rulz." (Rather, it seems
quite natural to emulate them ;).
This is not to say that I want to be be a jerk to
people, but I am saying that if the rule is fucked
people are going to get fucked too. FYI thats a
problem, and one which may outweight the value of
keeping any one article from being trashed by reverts.
Since when is the energy of contributors of less value
than a controversial rule --one which can easily be
substituted by a better protection process? Or better
yet: one which, if it can be the basis for a block,
should be known well enough to be appropriately
enforced (all guilty parties) in the first place?
SV
--- Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You know, I might think this was a problem if it
weren't for the fact
that a blind revert war is never an acceptable way
to deal with any
kind of content dispute _whatsoever_. If you
reverted a content change
more than 3 times in 24 hours, you aren't editing
the way you're
supposed to be. Period. If someone is not blocking
fairly, that is
their fault, not the fault of the rule.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com