On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Well, remembering that all people have flaws, a number of people on WR seem quite nice. Still, WR has attacks which should not be linked to. Removal of links should be done to protect people, not to punish WR.
Yes, and my point in the paragraph above is precisely that it does not protect them in the long run.
Short-term solutions do not preclude long terms ones. I also suggest attempting to improve relations with certain websites.
Removing (or better, defanging) personal attacks is something I do myself, and have no quibble with.
Good! : )
What I object to is stopping all discussion of particular attacks, both alleged and actual.
Not all discussion, just public discussion of specific attacks, unless of course the attackee wants to talk about it.
It may make targets (or perceived targets) feel better in the short term. In the long run, it creates darkness where suspicion and indifference breed.
William
But if you do let people talk about it, some of them may agree with the attacks, or say that the attackee needs to have thicker skin. As Fred pointed out, some things which may be said are false, but not obviously so. I'm not saying you would, but it is common practise.
Thus, public discussion of the matter can have very real damaging effects on the attackees.