|
If we did, I suspect that all it would do is cause DUers to take sides and fight about it, based on some preconceived notion of what might happen, even though nobody would really know how it might work in practice. And it wouldn't really matter, because nobody will know for certain whether the system will work. At this point we are convinced that change is necessary, and we are committed to it. So we are willing to try a fairly dramatic change. What we don't want to do is pass up an opportunity to try something new, because too many members were afraid to even try.
The reason we continue to have problems on DU2 is because we cannot solve them within the DU2 system. As I've said many many times, I do not believe the answer to our problems is: Do what we're doing on DU2, only do it better. (Believe me, we've tried.) For one thing, I suspect my idea of "do it better" is different from yours or anyone else's.
Which brings us to your assertion that I'm unwilling to deal with the worst offenders or offenses now. I'm not sure "unwilling" is precisely the correct word. I would say "reluctant." And I'll be honest, I don't think I could possibly be any other way. Frankly, I'm somewhat baffled that you are here asking me to take a harder line on the worst offenders (again), given the fact that I told you six weeks ago you were among the DUers with the most deleted posts in the previous 90 days. (Six weeks later, you remain in that group.) But I am aware that our current DU2 system depends on there being a credible threat that people get banned for their behavior, and FWIW we are still banning quite a few people and will continue to do so (even if we aren't always banning the people you would like). If someone you don't like hasn't been banned yet, I would suggest taking advantage of our ignore feature.
A version of the post-deleted-lock-out-of-thread rule will likely appear on DU3.
|