[WikiEN-l] Assume bad faith, for banned users.

[David Gerard]

On 15/11/2007, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:

> > Banned users have been banned for a reason. That reason makes the
> > assumption of bad faith valid. The policy of "Assume Good Faith" says:
> > "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people
> > who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."
> > The fact that they've been indefinitely banned *is* strong evidence to
> > the contrary.

> Your attempted redefinition assumes that once a person has been proven
> to act in bad faith in a particular set of circumstances he will act in
> bad faith for everything that he does in the future.  In your scheme
> there is never any redemption.  For people who are being punished to
> "teach them a lesson" it assumes that the lesson will never be learned,
> even after they have done their full time.


Yes. Redemption must always be available.

(I'm not sure what would make me think Amorrow being allowed back on
would be a good idea ... but there must be something.)


- d.