At 10:00 p.m. 9/06/2003, DPF wrote:
Normally, yes.I'm actually a bit of a believer that if someone accuses someone else of something, than that person responds and each individual can decide whom they believe is more credible.
True. But we have seen people who did not mind committing political suicide, who professed that "they were willing to jump off a cliff, as long as they could nn with them." (Thornton)Generally attacking people backfires on the person doing the attacking which is a strong incentive against.
What I propose is close to the GA rules, but with the extra to combat malicious libel.>What do you propose instead? Normal list rules where moderators can suspend people for offensive or abusive conduct, but not where someone is a "judge" of whom is right or wrong. If you want a specific example I would propose the GA rules.