| |
|
I do rather wish people would not use lynching as metaphor for, for example, "being criticised" or "being excluded from an Internet message board".
cusm:
What we will tolerate here will have different lines, and I am happy to support them.
I think the issue here is that you don't seem to entirely "get" or agree with those lines - so, are you undertaking to attempt to think yourself into the mindset of somebody who is oversensitive about anti-Semitism, and then behave accordingly, or only ever to vote with the majority on any discussion about banning somebody for what is perceived as anti-Semitism or other hate speech? I'm not concerned particularly about your views as a person, at least here, but rather your fitness, along with others in this thread, to be a moderator, and specifically a moderator with the power to veto bans, either in the Temple or across the board, if and when that bug gets fixed. Likewise charrelz and life critic, and _ _ _, if he has not in fact burned his suit.
Arguably, of course, we could just agree that the banning system as it stands is a bit broken anyway, so we should just carry on flagging concerns to Tom - in practical terms, it looks like that is likely to happen a fair bit, unless we can find a contribution from somebody on a well-modded forum, in particular with the Temple, and possibly in particular in particular with anti-Semites in the Temple, since there are not very many moderators and those who are may not be very good at detecting hateful speech against races or religions, say, or may not find it cause for banning.
As it stands, I think we have a broad agreement that the duties and expectations of a web host or ISP are different from those of an online community, and the lessons learned from applying those of one should not be taken to another. So, yes, the pair.com definition of hate speech is not really applicable here. We could consider it, but it's not applied and never has been. |
|
|
