| |
|
Hey everyone. So, basically I'm - typically - in the middle of a work crunch and don't have the time today to spend more than twenty minutes or so thinking about this. I know that's sub-optimal but I have a to-do list as long as my arm and I'm flying to the US first thing in the morning, so we'll just have to make do.
We have been - as a community - traditionally reserved about banning people, but that does seem to be changing and I'd ask people to consider why that might be before we get going, and whether it's fair any more to represent ourselves in that way. I'd argue that it's always in our best interests to be reserved about these things, but I have to be honest, I have no read much of 33's ouevre so I don't know how objectionable and badly behaved he's been yet. Still, at the beginning of each of these things, I feel I should urge caution.
Having said that, the Shadowsax situation was long, drawn-out and I think ended predictably. At the time I said that it was my belief that such a process was almost a formality - that by putting someone in that kind of trial-like position there was almost no possible outcome other than that they feel cornered and act up than before. It almost felt like a mechanism to build board consensus that he should rather than a method for determining one way or another whether his behaviour was acceptable. And it was difficult and slow and long and painful and unpleasant. So it's worth asking whether or not that process was the correct one, I think.
We might have to move to something more rapid - perhaps something simple like saying to individuals that if they want to propose a ban then they have to do so by standing up, and writing a case for it, that the person on the other side has an opportunity to respond to that case, a parallel thread be created for discussion and then after 72 hours we vote on the original terms of the proposition. If that doesn't pass, someone else is able to propose a similar move a month later if they really feel like it. We need something more agile than the Shadowsax process.
Right now, we need to make a decision more quickly than normal. I'm going to be away for ten days and so if this kicks off one way or another I'm not going to be able to sort out the situation very rapidly. Could I ask people to start a new thread, read some of the threads in question and then post whether or not they think 33 should be banned. If the moderators can agree between themselves who is going to keep track of the votes, that would be awesome. Once we've got over fifty votes or hit Sunday evening, then we'll add up the numbers, someone can send me the tally and we'll act accordingly.
Sounds reasonable in the circumstances? |
|
|
