On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:49:34 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
I have a fundamental philosophical problem with extending the "banned is banned" concept to the extent that anything originating with a banned user must be suppressed from being linked, quoted, or mentioned anywhere, even by an editor in good standing. Are we really like the party of Orwell's 1984 that made disfavored people into "Unpersons", or like the Church of Scientology which has the concept of "Suppressive Persons"? Such concepts fit better with authoritarian regimes and mind-control cults than with communities devoted to gathering and sharing information.
And I have a fundamental philosophical problem with the idea that banning is "suppression", and indeed with your continued use of such loaded language to describe many attempts to create and maintain a safe environment for those editors who are, unlike banned users, prepared to work within our policy and community mores.
When we ban people it's because they have shown a complete inability to contribute neutrally. Taking their opinions offsite does not fix that problem. If they consider they have fixed the problem and have neutral input to make on a subject then they are more than welcome to appeal the ban. Luke 15:7 and all that.
We don't make them unpersons, we simply tell them, regretfully but firmly, that their input is no longer welcome. I completely fail to see why taking this input to a place where we have absolutely no control over it whatsoever would materially affect that judgment. If a view is significant and mainstream then we will usually have many unbanned users prepared to advocate it in a way that satisfies policy.
Guy (JzG)