On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Scott Brim <scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Anonymity plus disruption. If we can ignore it it's not a problem worth
pursuing... But note that even when identified, disruption is the central
problem with almost the same solutions. Anonymity isn't a central issue.
Yup. I think when the first email message we see from a particular source is
obviously disruptive and off-topic, we do not need to wait for a larger
statistical sample before acting. If the disruptiveness was the result of a
misunderstanding, we can correct that when we receive the apology.
I think Jordi misspoke, and we should not make a policy of doing what he said
in his answer to Brian. But I haven't seen anything thus far to suggest to me
that the action taken was the wrong one.