On 11/15/07, Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Alec wrote:
There problem we do have is much much smaller, and relates more to
incivility and NPA than to the banning policy. It involves not
seriously believing people to BE a banned user, but sort of loosely
tossing around the accusations of a vague sort of link to banned
users. "Supporting" the banned user. "Agreeing with" the banned
user. "Friends with" the banned user. "Your buddy" the banned user.
Such statements often have a bit more behind them than the people who make
them are at liberty to disclose openly.
Oh Lordy, Durova-- that's true, there are cases like that but it's an
incredibly dangerous direction. Secret claims the accused person
can't rebut. Secret claims that can't be discussed in public. And as
you imply, "doube secret" evidence-- where not only is the specific
content of the evidence secret, but even the existence of such
evidence might be secret (or at least unknown).
Maybe there's some secret evidence that suggests DanT really is in
league with WR? Maybe there's some evidence that GTBacchus really is
an advocate sent by ED? Maybe even there's some secret evidence being
spread against me???
I hope not. And I hope no one will assume that "somebody must know
something, or else they wouldn't make the allegation" the next time
somebody throws out one of those "How's your buddy Awbry doing" jokes
that are so common round here.
For my part, I will henceforth assume that there IS no secret evidence
in all discusion I'm aware of, unless somebody specifically tells me
otherwise. AGF _must_ entail Assume There's No Secret Evidence Out
There Against the Person.
Alec
(as a personal trophy-- I made it through that entire email without
once using a metaphor involving ANY past or present political event
involving secret evidence or secret trials, including, but not limited
to: the Spanish Inquisition, Stalinist Russian, Nazi Germany, Fascist
Italy, The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, The Magna Carta, Acts 25:16, or Guantanemo Bay.
And boy, that's not easy for a nut like me to do, so go me! visions
of all of them were dancing in my head through that whole email, but
Wikipedia is NOT the real world, Blocking is NOT execution, an Arbcom
case is not a trial, Durova is a kind intelligent person and NOT a
fascist dictator, and I am NOT a member of any resistance party about
to restore my nation to freedom. But I hafta say-- the temptation
was heavy hehehe)