Declaring a debate settled (was My two knuts) LONG

[Amy Z]

Daniel wrote:

> I strongly object to the implication that any otherwise on-topic 
> discussion be banned simply because it pertains to a person who was 
> banned.  Are banned people to be "unpersons" in the Orwellian 
sense, 
> to be treated as if they never existed and purged retroactively 
from 
> history?

Not at all, and ironically, the only person who has so much as hinted 
at the idea that Cindy's posts ought to be deleted has been Tom, who 
presumably means they would be deleted *at her request.*  We have 
banned members before, reluctantly and only after extremely 
destructive behavior (or evidence of the same on previous lists, as 
in the case of Ken McCormick), and we do not retroactively delete 
their posts.  No one on Admin has suggested any such thing, nor have 
I.

I understand your discomfort with banning a topic.  I share it and 
have long advocated opening up topics that have been deemed too 
controversial, e.g. politics.  I certainly don't want to treat anyone 
as persona non grata, and it would be cutting off our nose to spite 
our face to ignore Cindy's contributions to these lists.

My point is that the circumstances that partly led to Cindy's being 
banned suggest that the debate that preceded Cindy's banning should 
not continue.  Why?  I repeat:  the exact way Cindy has sowed chaos 
on the lists is to stage these debates.  Neither reason, nor 
listening, nor patient conversation will resolve them, because she 
does not act like someone who wishes them to be resolved--unless they 
are resolved entirely in her favor.  She writes one long, legalistic 
post after another, and whatever one responds is met with another 
long, legalistic post unless one has completely capitulated to her 
POV and given her what she is seeking (in this case, reinstatement on 
the lists).

Please see my post on OTChatter (message #19660) for a history of 
what happens when another set of reasonable, pleasant, non-Orwellian 
people like yourself get sucked in to the maelstrom that Cindy has 
created on one HPfGU list after another.  It began with the 
Moderators group (translation: the group of Moderators only, as 
distinct from the Admin list, which includes Elves & Geists--that 
Moderator-only group no longer exists) and moving outwards to the 
Admin list, the FAQ list, and OTC.  She was banned from all HPfGU 
lists before Feedback was created, so the information she is getting 
from Feedback is either coming to her secondhand, or she is reading 
the list under a false ID (very easy to do, as we all know.  It may 
surprise you to learn that my real name is not Lupinesque <g>).  And 
thus the very debate that caused Cindy to be finally banned continues 
here--thus handing her the victory she sought, at the cost of the 
well-being of a community that has thousands more members than this 
one troubled person.

I won't repeat my entire OTC post, but will just insert the link here 
to make that section of my argument:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/19660

Ready?  OK, I'll continue.  The story I see unfolding is this:

1. After over a year of struggles, attempts to placate her, attempts 
to work with her, etc. by several groups, and after Cindy has taken 
her case to one of the non-support lists (OTC) to continue the battle 
there, the admin group (sorrowfully, since most of the members are or 
were friends of Cindy's) reaches the conclusion that Cindy must be 
banned.

2. Cindy (and this goes for other banned member) can, of course, join 
the lists under false IDs, and there is no way to stop her.  So be 
it.  The point is that she not be allowed to continue the behavior, 
because it has been destructive to the lists.  If anyone else 
continues that behavior, regardless of their ID, I am suggesting that 
the thread be ended.  The shorthand for ending threads based on their 
contentiousness is "banned threads," but if that idea rankles with 
you, we'll just say the admins can call a halt to any thread they 
think exemplifies the problematic behavior, which of course they can.

3. Cindy can also enlist friends to post her arguments, or for that 
matter, her very words.  As long as they don't admit that they are 
simply pasting her words into their posts, there is no way to stop 
this either.  Again, so be it--as long as they are not essentially 
repeating the behavior that finally resulted in her being banned.  If 
they do, they should be asked to stop and if they do not stop, the 
usual consequences follow.

Does that clarify my point?

We have spent several posts now on the question of Cindy's 
copyrights, which is a question that she can surely take up with the 
admin list if she wishes to.  (If they have been ignoring her e-
mails, and I would if I were them, they will still of course respond 
to a summons if she decides to sue them.)  There is no reason to 
debate it here.  Anyone else who wants to clarify the copyright laws 
for themselves may of course do so.  Most people don't give a hoot 
about their posts being used, quoted, etc. in non-commercial ways on 
a voluntary list, and we don't even know that *Cindy* gives a hoot.  
It seems that she does, because as I said, it is very obvious to me 
that many of the posts coming from Tom's Yahoo ID are written by 
Cindy and posted to this list by Tom on her behalf, in which case it 
seems that she does.  No matter.  It is a legal issue between Cindy 
and the administrators of the list and not something we can debate 
usefully here.  

Now Tom has raised the question of whether Cindy should have been 
banned and said that he is trying to get that "dealt with."  I cannot 
understand why the HPfGU lists should continue to "deal with" a 
question that was settled two months ago.  This is like a court being 
forced to hear appeal after appeal of a case that has already been 
decided by the final court of appeal.  The courts do not have to do 
that--they can say "it's been settled," and the plaintiff has to go 
away.  He can't say, "the Constitution guarantees me the right to 
redress grievances"--he has already had his day in court.  He can 
vent his frustration to the letters-to-the-editor page for the rest 
of his days but he cannot be heard in court unless he has a complaint 
on a substantially different point.  Were these limits not set, our 
courts would be filled with people with too much money and not enough 
respect for the community, and would be badly distracted from the 
business of the rest of the community.  I do not consider that 
Orwellian, nor, from what I know of Orwell, would he have done so.  
Rules are a necessary part of any community--even an anarchistic 
commune has unspoken rules of behavior, such as "don't burn down the 
buildings," or it ceases to exist.

A list is not, nor should it be, obligated continually to discuss a 
specific question that was settled by the administrators of the 
list.  *If new information arises* that substantially affects the 
decision, then I would certainly hope that Cindy could reopen it by 
making this information available to the admins.  In the absence of 
such information, repeatedly raising the subject constitutes a 
nuisance and an act of harassment, as far as I'm concerned. (NB:  I 
am not a lawyer and am not using these terms in their legal sense, 
but in the common-sense vernacular of the layperson.  My courts 
analogy is just that, an analogy.)

Now, we could say that Feedback can remain a free zone to discuss 
even old issues like whether we can talk about Richard Abanes's book 
(he was another person who showed up to pick fights and so the topic 
of his book was banned, to my sorrow because I love discussing HP and 
religion).  The question of Cindy's banning can remain an open 
question here forever.  I don't recommend it, but it's up to the 
admins.  As long as the topic remains banned on other lists (and it 
is, since it comes under policy discussion, which is directed over to 
Feedback just as movie discussion is directed to -Movie), I 
personally will go enjoy those lists, and I may participate in 
Feedback discussions that have nothing to do with Cindy.  Considering 
how tireless she is, and the myriad ways for her to continue to 
participate undetected, but only suspected, by the admins, I wonder 
how many discussions will remain untouched by her.  I also wonder 
whether it makes sense for someone who has declared her aim to be 
revenge against those who kicked her out of power (paraphrase of 
offlist communication) to be allowed to continue to make her case on 
the list they are administering.  But again, that's for the admins to 
decide.

My concern is this.  Any list, any community, can be destroyed by one 
determined member as long as other, well-meaning people insist that 
that person has a right to an infinite number of hearings.  It seldom 
happens, because most people want to abide by the community's 
guidelines, or seek to change them by reasonable argument (as many of 
us wish to do from time to time, which is why we join a list like 
Feedback).  If they really dislike the guidelines, they join another 
community (we're not talking towns, here, we're talking voluntary 
associations).  Occasionally, however, there are people who cannot 
rest with that.  They will not be happy until the community is in 
shreds.  The only way to protect the community is to make it 
impossible for their actions to continue.  Good people hate to take 
that step, and I honor you for balking at it.  But I believe it is 
sometimes a necessary one.

Amy Z