From: "Alan Hannan" <hannan@UU.NET>
It seems that you are asking for vigilantism, not cooperation.
Unfortunately there's truth to this comment. Too often when an issue like this is discussed we are all mesmerized by an image of getting a real bad guy. Unfortunately, as many who actually deal with this stuff know, people lie shamelessly and inflate complaints for various reasons, other times they just don't provide enough information to verify what they claim, yet may get threatening and nasty if you don't just believe every single word they say and go kill this person they feel has wronged them, on their wish. I'd say around half of the complaints I see range from "there's nothing wrong with that behavior, what's your point?", to "there's absolutely no evidence what you describe happened, but I can't help but notice the two of you have been exchanging obscenities in alt.politics.no.i.am.right, could that possibly have something to do with your accusation?" So, investigation and process are important considerations. The other problem, in any system of governance, is what is a proper sanction? In the physical world even murderers can do their time and eventually get out. Maybe you don't agree with that but just as one extreme example. Perhaps put better, in the outside world if you're caught, say, running a stop sign or some similar infraction you get a ticket which might cost you $100 and some increase in insurance etc. Get enough, and you lose your license and so on, don't do it again and it fades away after a few years. One gets the feeling that at our current level of sophistication in internet governance no matter what the infraction we'd either ignore it or crush the person's car, mostly depending on which action was more convenient at the moment. Put simply: Governance is hard. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989