Are you saying that rather than (A) banning jerks,
we should rather (B) simply revert their "work"
and drive on without them?
I think this is better than banning them, yes.
Beyond that I'd like to point out that this "hard/soft" security debate, is
just part of a larger set of issues. As I see it there are two different kinds of
movements bounded set, and center set. A center set movement is defined by its mission or
purpose, and have very little interest in determining who's in and who's out of
the group. Bounded set movements are very much interested in determining the boundary
conditions for group membership. You're in if you do A, B, or C, and out if you do X,
Y, or Z. As a center set movement (like the wikipedia community) age, they tend to
acquire more and more of the characteristics of bounded set movements.
This can be seen in Larry's proposal to involve more specialists by creating a bounded
set movement for them, so they don't have to deal with the "fringe" types,
as well as in most of the recent talk about how to better deal with the "fringe"
elements.
My overall view is that we ought not to become a bounded set movement. This is my primary
concern, and I think the distinction between hard and soft security is of secondary
importance. If we were to become more concerned about membership in our club than our
mission to build a free encyclopedia, I'm fairly confident that our movement will
slowly fall apart.
Yours
Mark Christensen