"Alan Browne"  wrote 
  
 > Charles wrote: 
  
 >> I think putting a "prohibition" is good because it sugests behavior and 
 >> the normal people will abide. Of course the trolls and vandals will 
 >> ignore it. The question is how best to word the "prohibition". I am not 
 >> sure about "not permitted" because it does sound somewhat odd when you 
 >> can't actually enforce it in an unmoderated group. It might be better 
 >> to say "not welcome" or "not allowed". But probably as others suggested 
 >> "inappropriate" would be better wording. 
  
 >> I do think it would be 
 >> interesting to put "not permitted" and see if those who promised to 
 >> enforce the prohibitions actually did so. It could be seen as a test. 
  
 Yep!  I'm 100% on this, it would certainly help the sort. 
  
 > I've failed to bring up an important point clearly enough.  When it 
 > comes to complaints to ISP's, re-mailer policy and spammers, it is 
 > genuinely useful to have prohibited behaviour spelled out such that it 
 > is not subject to interpretation. 
  
 Imperative! 
  
 > I'm not claiming that compliance or enforcement is universally applied, 
 > but it is in some quarters. 
  
 At least it's the beginning kernel of teeth. I can see it becoming more 
 universal if we all push toward it.  Especially if we can clean up the 
 paper and take the uncertainty out of it for the enforcer(s). 
  
 Hope to never need them, but hope they're sharp when you do 
  
 :)x 
  
 -- 
 One thing you can guarantee, though: if you don't try, you'll never 
 have to find out it might have succeeded, and you can be very smug 
 about your species' extinction as it is happening: "I _told_ them 
 there was no way to bring peace to this planet!" 
 - xanthian 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)