| |
|
Well, the Fetch was banned. If Epop has not scrambled his own password (and how would we know) then the evidence from his behaviour here and elsewhere suggests that he is not emotionally equipped to post on a board which is not largely dedicated to protecting him. The others - well, why bother? It would set an awkward precedent, since Scarlet and Rural Savage at best disrupted a thread or two, and not very successfully. Dragon was stupid and bigoted, but I'd like to see a process in which it is actually explained that a refusal to listen to and consider the views of others in a discussion is banning behaviour if that behaviour causes significant discomfort or distress. And then who decides what constitutes listening? Shadowsax would have fallen foul of that and saved us the misogyny conversation, I suppose.
In those terms, what has happened here is that DEDI has essentially not turrned into a good poster after the near-banning. I won't speak for the Temple, because I am not qualified to comment on the value of his contributions. In the Head Shop he just turned up and said things. What does make me feel a bit awkward is that this latest issue came up because the things he was saying appeared to be motivated by a desire to talk about BDSM experiences, real or otherwise, which clearly had had an impact on the way he perceived the world and the practice of BDSM, and generally this sort of potentially emotionally quite awkward stuff should be given support and an attentive ear, but that this was at odds with the impact his prescriptive and generalising descriptions were having. That is, if he'd just started saying "I" rather than "you", and entered into negotiation about the view of the "natural Domina", there would not have been an issue.
What this does seem to say is that once the ban process has advanced to a particular point, it is almost impossible for the subject to be totally free of it, because quite simply if the skills or attitude were in evidence that would allow one to come back from nearly having been banned, then the banning discussion would probably not have been started in the first place.
So, peaking personally, I don't really feel like DEDI has done anything this time around to justify banning. However, it seems that there was an expectation that he would jusstify the decision not to ban by changes in behaviour which have not been made.
On voting: I can see a couple of problems with that idea, as a simple process. One is that ten or eleven people is still a small proportion of the potential voting pool, so how does one decide it? Votes for versus votes against? And, if so, what's to stop perhaps two dozen people joining as a group and then calling for the banning of various members? So, do we offset value-to-board, however one defines that, with power-of-vote, for example? It's possible that the best way to ban if we are going to start banning due to a level off contribution sufficiently low or difficult to interfere with the quality of discussion would be by majority vote, but we'd need a mechanism to control that.
So, hypothetical question. Are we agreed that if DEDI had burned his suit, rejoined the baord and successfully concealed his identity, or indeed if none of the actions leading up to the first wave of banning discussion had taken place, we wouldn't be discussing banning based on his contributions since? That is, that Stoatie's ASBO metaphor is basically correct, although I see it as potentially flawed in one way? |
|
|
