On Nov 29, 2007 8:33 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How can an arbiter-- ANY arbiter, be expecte to
impartialy rule on
their own behavior?
I cannot. However, this case is not about it, so the point is moot.
How, if it was clear-cut that Giano should be banned--
if it was right
down the line with all the arbiters saying "nope-- Giano crossed the
line" then okay, maybe it was no big deal. Instead, what we're
seeing, instead, is that the members of the mailing list are all
lining up FOR banning, while people who were excluded from the mailing
list are lining up against Giano's ban.
If Giano had never behaved questionably before, I would not be voting
for banning him.
Members of hte Secret Investigations List shoudl have
been recused
from the get go. They shouldn't have been even participating, they
should have been parties.
Why? Durova's block of !! (what this case is actually about) *was
never even discussed on that list*. I wish it would have been; it
would have given me a chance to look at the evidence and try and
convince her otherwise.
-Matt