Several areas of concern regarding the issue of warnings have led to this post.
One: The process of reading lengthy threads in multiple intersectional discussions has proven to be complicated and exhausting. Because of the inherent subjectivity of warnings, deciding when to apply them is a difficult and lengthy process for the linkspam mods. We realize that offering full and ideal warnings may be a task beyond our current capacities and therefore wonder whether it would be preferable to cease warning altogether if our current warnings system proves to be unacceptable.
Two: We have received several comments requesting us to rethink our warnings policy/practices. Requests for ending the practice exist alongside requests to expand the range of things we warn for.
We understand our warnings have been inconsistent, and we have been discussing that, as well as the nature of what to warn for. Since no single Linkspam post is the work of one person (in most cases, three-five people participate), a certain inconsistency may be inevitable.
Our philosophy is that we are not aiming for objectivity. We know we will fail which is why we welcome feedback. As a result of the recent feedback we have received, we are opening up this thread to solicit reader commentary on the issue of warnings.
1. Comment settings will allow anonymous comments.
2. All comments are screened
3. Comments will be unscreened as long as they are not derailing, abusive or off-topic (unless poster requests the comment remain screened).
We would especially appreciate feedback on the following, but of course you are free to respond on any issue.
1. Should Linkspam continue warnings?
2. What kind of warnings are most helpful? Least helpful?
3. If you believe we should offer warnings, how important are they for you?
ETA: When we say we're not objective, we don't mean we allow our personal dislike of a poster to cloud our judgement. In fact, we (as a matter of policy) recuse ourselves from warning when we've a personal history with the poster, or when our personal opinion of zie has become too entangled for us to be neutral. What we mean is that we will always try to be on the side of anti-oppression, and that we try to see issues under that light before any others. Us not being objective is to be taken in context of the usual emphasis on objectivity for journalists, and criticisms we have received pointing out that warning was 'editorialising'.' /ETA