Will there be a general announcement about the new "no warning" policy?

[nashville_brook]

With regard to the response given to CaliforniaPeggy about no longer providing personal warnings to members who have crossed the line, I was wondering if there might be an announcement -- a blanket warning -- that the policy of providing personal warnings is no longer in effect.

Seems that regardless of the usefulness of a warning on the poster's end, warnings serve to inoculate DU against accusations of ideological bias/purging. An announcement might give DU a chance to nip these accusations in the bud.

[Skinner]

1. I don't think a special announcement on this one thing is necessary.

I have made reference to it a few times in my public announcements, most recently http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/380">here. I'll re-post the relevant excerpt here:

We've been much more aggressive and decisive in our efforts to identify disruptive people in the community, and (if necessary) to remove them so they will no longer poison the atmosphere for everyone else. Gone are the days when we gave problem people multiple warnings and second, third, and fourth chances that only served to delay the inevitable. We know that people don't like seeing DUers banned, especially DUers who have been here for a long time. But we have decided that we can no longer afford to let disruptive friends stick around forever, as they have made it impossible for everyone else to participate in a good-faith way. If we have to make DU smaller in order to make DU friendlier, so be it.

I'm sure I'll mention it many more times in my public announcements.

As for inoculating DU "against accusations of ideological bias/purging," I'll have to admit that this is a fairly low priority for me. I have faith that fair-minded people know that we are fair. As for the dwindling number of DUers with a chip on their shoulder and/or an axe to grind -- I'm done wasting my time trying to convince them of my good faith.

[nashville_brook]

2. i was less concerned with the perceptions of individual posters

and more interested in DU's general brand as a place where great dialogue happens. but the emphasis on individuals is probably more apropos given the passage you cite.

when i read that passage back in November, and as i read it again, "multiple second/third/fourth chances," etc., indicated/indicates that a good faith first warning was still in effect. so, your clarification here is really quite valuable to me, because I didn't catch your original intent.

thanks for making this clear.