Do you guys really think every petition is simply that cut and dry? There's a lot of grey areas, a lot of give and take, a lot of interpretations of the rules, a lot of misunderstandings.
This idea of punishing "wolf calling" belies an underlying belief that there's specific entities who are more guilty of frivolous petitions than others, and I truly don't believe that to be the case. Every petition can be argued by either side convincingly, this stuff isn't ever as simple as we'd like it to be and the evidence is notoriously hard to evaluate.
There's simply no objective way to say someone's acting in bad faith, most of the questionable petitions tend to be questions of intent, which is nearly impossible to determine, rather than something that you can immediately call an outright lie or bad faith petition. Additionally, with the long delays involved in the process of ruling on these things a punishment is not as significant of a deterrent. Behaviorally, its well established that punishment doesn't work for shaping when its randomly applied and the longer its delayed from the target behavior.
"You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view" — Obi-Wan Kenobi, Return of the Jedi.
|