Proposed infractions system

[Peter Lemkin]

i just went and voted but it tells me, i already have, i did not, though i did express my opinion, in a post, the vote was not uploaded at that time, to click...not as far as i recall.thanks b

I just replied with a quote...for a reason...I wanted to highlight that the same apparent thing happened to me. I voted and was shown a screen with a tally, but it saying 'you have already voted'. [i.e. it is confusing to know if my vote was counted, or not.]

I can understand a request for the reduction of long quotes being repeated, but often people read only the last one or few post on a thread - especially fast growing ones and persons repeat all or parts of what they think are important articles/comments, etc. A banner request to keep that to the absolute minimum, yes, an 'infractions system', no.

While I am aware of, and acknowledge the 'problem' of ad hom attacks, and related, I suggest making it very clear that this is not to be encouraged; in fact, it is to be frowned upon! That said, an automated system doesn't sit well with me. In the end, those who run the show will do as they please. One can only hope they do so fairly and with an even hand. Once you set up a penalty system there are experts at baiting others to 'step over the line', while just having their own toes on the line - any fair system has to be human based, in the end, IMO.

As a victim of [im]moderation myself on another forum and having been a moderator on that very forum, I know well the problems and biases inherent in such as system. I also know there begins a slippery slope once one institutes such a system, which has a tenancy to grow, and become more problematic for all. Has the DPF become a victim of its own success or has Sunnstein and others started their cognitive infiltration? I think a bit of both - with the Sunnstein-clones the minor factor, so far. Many of the issues we deal with here are ones of great personal and often World importance. Many of us have spent years working on these (or related) issues and have very firm opinions. Sometimes those opinions clash and things do, yes, sometimes get heated. And yes, all reasonable persons would agree that any 'attack' should be on the ideas and positions, not on the person. Jack, above, pointed-out how difficult the nuance between those two can be.

Just as I do not like the idea of prisons; but rather favor the idea of encouraging persons to be better able to interact without harming others in society [in our case here the forum], I urge whatever measures are taken to ere on the side of 'carrots', rather than 'stick' alone. One last warning, debate over the type and nature/strength of a 'moderation' system can, at times, become as divisive and disruptive as the 'wrongs' they seek to address....proceed with caution and don't say I didn't warn all.....