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