nice find. 4 of the 5 recommendations aren't followed.

Let's see:

You should have real humans dedicated to monitoring and responding to your community: We do, but it says something about "tools and power" and soemthing about a large number. So this is a NO.

You should have community policies about what is and isn't acceptable behavior: We do, but ours are pretty unprecise and open to interpretion and discussion (cunt, nigger, ...). So I'd say: NO.

Your site should have accountable identities: We do in the sense that you can't usually change the name you gave yourself and thus have to stick with the history you gathered. However, anybody can have uncounted alts and abuse those in any way he/she likes without that behaviour being accounted to the other accounts. As a result: NO.

You should have the technology to easily identify and stop bad behaviors: Thinking about yohan and the axl-blog that's an easy and plain one: NO.

You should make a budget that supports having a good community, or you should find another line of work: I do not know how much money is spend on this site for which purpose, thus I am not in the position to judged. And if you do not know for sure, you should be in favor of the defendant: MAYBE.

Where did you see that one point dug?

I sure hope Ryan doesn't result in turning of comments. And I don't claim that I'd be doing any better than he is, just to make that very clear.

They are real humans monitoring. That got the point. But with traffic down, and the shenanigans going on with bots, skype, etc. Not a lot they can do.

Can i at least get 1/2 a point?

Well ok. Jurgens effort sure is worth 1/2 point and the unclear funding plus usual rounding procedures... We could sum it up to 1 point.