Tom, let me make it clear that my frustration here is not connected with ParanoidWriter, particularly. It's to do with what I see as a near-impossible situation with regard to the community and banning. When you say
As far as I'm concerned normally the point at which I'm called in from the rest of the board registers at a point where it is more than likely that the largest proportion of the board who are participating in the discussion favour a ban. Certainly, I wouldn't generally get involved in these discussions until banning has been mooted at a non-minority level.
I find it difficult to square that with the previous post in which you appear to characterising the individual 'Should X Be Banned' threads as "way way too much discussion". As the situation currently stands, you're the only person able to institute a ban, and one of the motivations behind the aforementioned threads was that, that being so, it ought to be established that the "largest proportion of the board" or a "non-minority" of posters actually do want X banned - as opposed to a vocal minority. Establishing this can be painful and protracted for all concerned, but in the current set-up, it must be done before you (and banning) can be invoked.
How, then, might this be achieved without "way way too much" discussion? This is a genuine question. In the case of ShadowSax, a slightly arbitrary seven-day limit was set. Should discussion be limited to a shorter frame? Should it happen behind the scenes, by PM? Should posters be allowed only one post each to state their opinion?
The difficulty with shorter time-frames is that you're not always available within hours or even days. The problem with PM discussions is lack of transparency (and this arose during the ShadowSax thing, when you solicited PM opinion, arguably undermining the on-board discussion). The problem with one-post-per-poster is that it's difficult to establish any sort of constructive dialogue with X (assuming constructive dialogue is what we're aiming for) and impossible to subsequently revise one's opinion.
Basically, if you think I've mishandled this one and should just ban the guy out of hand, and there's sufficient impetus behind that, then I'll do it. If you guys all change your mind and say that he shouldn't be censured at all, then I'll do that too. At the moment it looks like most of you want rid of him, but a few are less convinced. I proposed giving him a final opportunity to influence opinion in either direction, which seemed fair in the circumstances.
Inevitably, there's going to be difference of opinion, even among those choosing to join the Policy discussion (and these are, I think, a minority among those who regularly post on the board in general), so "sufficient impetus" and "looks like most of you" are inevitably going to be subjective judgements made by you.
I'm not throwing these up to be tricksy or argumentative. They're genuine flaws in any sort of banning process, and it's difficult to see a way around them when you're the only non-toothless one here, particularly if there's a cut-off where discussion becomes "way way too much" discussion. If discussion becomes lengthy, circular and exhausting, it's partly because, in your absence, it's all we have to address the situation. |
