Ed Poor wrote:
Toby wrote:
Given the context of this post, it would appear that Ed thinks that people are ganging up on RK, and then we're trying to excuse this because RK reacted badly.
No, Toby, you got the cart before the horse.
I see from below that you're discussing what happened the ''last'' time that there was a bunch of RK talk on the list. Not about what's happening today. OK, I understand now!
Rather, I think what happened the last time is that: (1) People ganged up on RK (or it seemed that way to him) (2) He defended himself (in a way people thought was inexcusably bad) (3) They used his 'defensiveness' as an excuse to ban him
I am not saying that people used (2) to defend (1), but that they used (2) to defend (3).
Well, that's probably valid. Or it might be, depending on specifics. (2) could never justify (1), but it might justify (3), in some cases. Especially if (1) only ''seemed'' that way.
But in general, I would be wary of using (2) to justify (3), since it might encourage people to try (1) in order to rile people up. I would rather limit bans to cases with, as Jimbo says, a "clean paper trail". That means no (1), or at least no (1) that is more than just seeming.
-- Toby