| |
|
OKey - I'm bumping this thread, because I think it makes sense to put all the discussion in one place, and because I think this thread provides useful context. However, it's worth taking a look at the thread FAble of the Bees starte on the same topic.
Normally we would start a new-and-neutral banning thread, as Fable quite correctly intended to do, but I believe that in this case there is a special circumstance. To wit 1) this current outbreak is tyhe continuation of a discussion put on ice last year and 2) Mordant/TTS does not apparently actually expect a ban, but rather wants a commitment to changed behaviour, thus:
I'd quite like to see Dedi banned, but I realise that's going to be hard to swing so I'm prepared to settle for taking a quietly vigilant approach, dealing with Dedi's unacceptable posts in an appropriate way: that is to say, without undue aggression, but with an eye on the sensibilities of people who may feel quite severely attacked and oppressed by this abusive poster.
As previously stated I do not expect meaningful communication with Dedi to occur; I'm more interested in mitigating the damage he can do by challenging his biased and ignorant comments.
So, there may actually be a case for reopening the banning thread later, if it turns out that somebody actually wants to ban ban him, if you see what I mean. At the moment, though, I looked at this thread and saw that there was a swell of support for a banning, which then tailed off into a discussion about libel and was resolved by an agreement not to take this any further. In that thread, Nina said:
Okay, so we're now in a place where someone has actually apologised for their actions and noted that we have a right to ban them should they behave in that way again.
and id entity said:
I'm not sure I need anything else from DEDI, actually— ze's essentially agreed to summary banning if ze does anything else unacceptable, as I read it.
In these terms, my key questions remain:
1) Is it true that the discussion on banning DEDI was put on ice conditional upon him ceasing to behave in the ways that lead to the discussion of him being banned in the first place?
2) If this is true, has this condition been broken?
If the answer to both of these questions is "yes", then we either need a banning thread or, arguably, don't even need a banning thread. If the end of this thread last time around resulted, in your opinion, in a clean slate, then we either need a banning thread or, more probably, could not justify a banning thread. |
|
|
