| |
|
Well I take your point, but what I was suggesting was that, without meaning to sound entirely dismissive, the plan of action that you've set up might have to account for members who have made so little contribution that no one was prepared to argue on their behalf except in the more impartial sense you describe. It's not that a general principle on banning or banning relatively new members shouldn't be heard, but that used in the fashion above it fails to address 33 as an individual, and lacks immediate relevance to the question of whether as a unique member his actions have warranted banning, and probably deserves a separate thread.
33's inability (so far) to give a coherent account of his actions, and as far as I'm aware there being little material he's contributed which would be considered worthwhile or substantial, would also make even his own defence problematic. To go back to an earlier point, as I recall Shadowsax gave the appearance of being coherent, and did make some contributions which were substantial and did not rely on his offensive views. He signalled, in an ultimately unsatisfactory way, that he wished to engage with the issues and with his own status/responsibilities as a member of Barbelith. In a preliminary unevidenced sort of way*, I'd suggest that 33 really hasn't done either of these, which would argue for a swifter "these posts are clearly inappropriate" and subject to moderator action/banning sort of reaction. These are relative judgements I'm making, of course, so I'm not opposed to there being a space in which other members could disagree, it just seems worthwhile pointing out that it could be likely no-one will.
My memory is not that great on the issue, but as I recall "Sensitive" was asked to leave without it being necessary to hold even a cursory trial, because his actions and reactions were so blatantly against board policy, there literally seemed very little to argue about. Now, it's possible that he in fact technically chose to leave because we didn't get his "sense of humour"** (ahem) but in any case it seemed a situation where the rules were fairly obviously breached, something could be done quickly and we could all move on. I'd suggest that several members feel that this is also one of those situations.
* Just off to a very, very wet Barbe-meet.
** If someone has a more accurate short history of events go for it. |
|
|
