Larry Sanger wrote:
The point is that you had agreed that sometimes we
gotta ban people. You
very kindly (and I *really* appreciate that) articulated principles we
should follow in banning. Then in this post you basically said that the
wise way is another way.
Well, not always. We need to stress *that* just as well.
I think we agree in principle, but differ in our evaluation of the
prospects in the future for a world without banning. It strikes me
that you are skeptical that this could ever be the case; I, on the
other hand, am hopeful that banning will remain rare, and will become
moreso.
That's all I want. The rest, I agree with. In
fact, I agree that we
should always be slow and public in banning signed-in users for being
difficult; we should be lenient and make an attempt to understand
legitimate beefs. Those have always been views, and they haven't changed.
The threat of ultimate reprisal *unfortunately* has to be there, though,
or the community will fall apart.
I think that's right, for now.
--Jimbo