Re: Limiting Spam posts, Trolls, Joe Jobs and other maleficence

As reasonable as it might seem to make rules to react to recent problems, this is one of the things governments tend to do ... and it nearly always goes wrong! To pick an extreme case to illustrate the point: In Great Britain some years back, two nine-year-old boys murdered a baby. Until then, children couldn't be tried in an adult court, but the law was changed just to satisfy expected public reaction to the limited sentencing powers of a juvenile court for that one case. It's like saying well, the law says children aren't held as responsible for their actions as adults, but we're going to throw these two to the wolves in the interests of politics.

In other words, good lawmaking should be based on the longer run rather than being tempted by a single instance.

-M

Free your mind

Comment on Re: Limiting Spam posts, Trolls, Joe Jobs and other maleficence

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Limiting Spam posts, Trolls, Joe Jobs and other maleficence by blogical (Pilgrim) on Feb 20, 2007 at 16:55 UTC
I agree with the anti-reactionist sentiment you and others have expressed. I would like to know how you believe an existing institution can evolve if not in response to recognizing an opportunity for growth, or need to address a shortcoming? As shown by the different opinions expressed here, no one on the pmdev team is rushing off to make any hasty changes. Discussion helps because the issue is considered and potential responses (and reasons for inaction) vetted.	[reply]
Re^3: Limiting Spam posts, Trolls, Joe Jobs and other maleficence by Moron (Curate) on Feb 20, 2007 at 17:12 UTC
I would say that development and evolution are almost opposites. Designing, building, testing and correcting and only releasing when you are sure is the way of the developer whereas accident is the mechanism of evolution. I always cringe when people say they want an organisation to evolve rather than develop :) -M Free your mind	[reply]