On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
<snip
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define those behaviors.
Basically, we shouldn't.
OK, that's news. Virtually everyone else on Wikipedia disagrees with you.
But it's nice that you agree with me that it was a list of difficult behaviors, and that you were mistaken about that.
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought we should ban 24.
If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point in trying to explain.
Could you please avoid twisting my words around? It's an awful habit. I *said*: I don't read MeatballWiki, etc. This doesn't mean that I don't want to understand your view. I just think it's unreasonable for you to ask us to go to MeatballWiki to learn what you mean. :-) You disagree? We *should* all go there, because you start using words defined there?
But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think that ideally we should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push, given the circumstances.
No, Cunc, that's not what I remember. You said we should ban 24. You were in favor of banning him. Please don't make us go find the original posts...
And you still haven't given any good reasons, on this list, for a total ban on banning.
This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any* one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty". That's certainly praise, if faint.
Just to raise your awareness: ;-) You mean you think I meant it with no sarcasm or facetiousness at all?
Larry