On Nov 16, 2007 7:16 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 11:31 PM, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:
I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring
to my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
The assumption of good faith is a rebuttable presumption. We take it to be the case, but only so long as there is no evidence to show otherwise.
After that, you need to prove good faith again.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
I would think the whole point of banning someone is to say that we no longer believe, as a community, that this person can contribute effectively to the project. Given that, it means that we are in effect assuming that any contribution made by such a user is not made in good faith. Which is why you have to work extra hard. It is not surprising if, given that most of us can with some ease see that you do not regret your past action, nor do you intend to change your motivation for editing the encyclopaedia, we do not choose to extend the -remarkably fragile- assumption of good faith to you. Naturally, thus, we will place you in the same category with those others - "banned users" - to whom we do not extend that good faith.
If you want to change that, you're going about it the wrong way. You can't expect saying that "all other banned users are bad, but I am not, because I did nothing really wrong" is going to change it. You may expect that accepting your past "ass-hattery" or whatever is enough, but frankly it isn't because we'd expect much more from someone who has worn out our willingness to extend good faith. So I'd suggest you either assume that your time here is finally done, or, in private, ask some forgiving individuals how to go about painstakingly recovering the community's trust. And listen to them.
RR