On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 07:42:40 The Cunctator wrote:
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 17:35, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Banning someone for being disruptive is not necessarily the top of a "slippery slope" towards censorship, as long as we're careful about
doing
it and keep a watchful eye on ourselves. On the other hand, letting disruptive yahoos get away with everything will eventually mean that
only
the disruptive yahoos stick around.
This would be a valid argument if the only way to prevent "disruptive yahoos" from "get[ting] away with everything" is to ban them.
But it isn't. Rather, merciless editing and ignoring personality has worked every time so far.
We already have sufficient policies in place for banning people. The harm in expanding them would outweigh the benefits.
That policy has worked, after a fashion, but it bears substantial costs - like creating an environment that some people just can't cope with, where we constantly have to argue with kooks, nutters, and other assorted people who just don't understand when they're either a) totally wrong, or b) that they're going to have to accept that there are other opinions besides theirs which, often, are far more widely held, and c) don't know how to have a civilized discussion about it without ad hominem attacks, and d) can't be taught.
If people can't debate issues sensibly for whatever reason (and that includes not resorting to accusations of "this person is an anti-foobar or a burglephobe and thus should be banned" at the drop of a hat) then they need to be told to behave. If they can't do that, they are getting in the road of the goal and should be dealt with so the rest of us can get back to work.