On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:49:34 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias"
<dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
I have a fundamental philosophical problem with
extending the "banned
is banned" concept to the extent that anything originating with a
banned user must be suppressed from being linked, quoted, or
mentioned anywhere, even by an editor in good standing. Are we
really like the party of Orwell's 1984 that made disfavored people
into "Unpersons", or like the Church of Scientology which has the
concept of "Suppressive Persons"? Such concepts fit better with
authoritarian regimes and mind-control cults than with communities
devoted to gathering and sharing information.
And I have a fundamental philosophical problem with the idea that
banning is "suppression", and indeed with your continued use of such
loaded language to describe many attempts to create and maintain a
safe environment for those editors who are, unlike banned users,
prepared to work within our policy and community mores.
When we ban people it's because they have shown a complete inability
to contribute neutrally. Taking their opinions offsite does not fix
that problem. If they consider they have fixed the problem and have
neutral input to make on a subject then they are more than welcome
to appeal the ban. Luke 15:7 and all that.
We don't make them unpersons, we simply tell them, regretfully but
firmly, that their input is no longer welcome. I completely fail to
see why taking this input to a place where we have absolutely no
control over it whatsoever would materially affect that judgment. If
a view is significant and mainstream then we will usually have many
unbanned users prepared to advocate it in a way that satisfies
policy.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG