[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: My two knuts

[Iggy McSnurd]

> On 30 Jan 2004 at 04:23, "Amy Z" <lupinesque at ...> wrote:
> 
> > I strongly object to the question of whether Cindy should have been
> > banned being raised here.
> 
> And 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?

Iggy here:

Nobody stated in any way that Cindy was going to be purged and treated
as if she never existed.  In fact, one of the things some of us here are
arguing for is that posts NOT be purged or deleted from the archives.  

I also don't feel that Amy was saying that the issue of Cindy's banning
should be raised on the list at all, rather I feel that she meant "here"
to mean "in this particular instance or conversation."

There's also the fact that there is the desire by many, that discussions
relating to Cindy not still make her a constant presence on the list
after she has been banned from it.  Banning someone from a list is
virtually always a last resort effort, and is never easy.  (I have had
to do it myself as a list owner.)  One of the main reasons that someone
is banned is because they are a strong and constant disruptive force on
the list, and need to be removed for the greater good of the list.  This
is much like the need to put people in prisons in real life.  Sometimes
you're eligible for parole (being moderated), and sometimes you're not
(being banned).

The primary reason that many people don't want the Cindy banning argued
over and over is because it's been hashed out repeatedly in other areas
of these groups... be they public or private lists.

> Dan:
> 
> Since the specific topic of this list is to discuss policy issues
> regarding the entire HPFGU group of lists (an issue that's off topic
> in the other lists), I'd say that discussing whether a past ban was
> justified or not, and whether that person should be "unbanned" now,
> was perfectly on-topic.  It's subject, of course, to objections from
> other participants against beating dead horses, but it would be best
> off left to die out by itself than forcibly banned.

Iggy here:

Agreed.  The purpose of this list IS to discuss policy and how the list
is run.  And yes, discussing a past ban can be considered to be on
topic.

On the other hand, you also say that it is best to let the subject die
off on its own.  The problem here is that it will never die off if
certain people insist on bringing the topic out of the attic and back to
light.  This would be much like the owners of a ranch needing to put a
horse down because it's too worn out to live, and a group of activists
insisting that the horse be put on life support at the joint expense of
the ranch owners and the town they live in.

> Dan:
> 
> I've been around electronic discussion forums for over 20 years now,
> including campus networks, FidoNet BBSs, Usenet, e-mail lists, web
> forums, etc., and I know that one of the most divisive things any
> moderator can do is to issue a flat ban on discussion of some topic
> that, other than for this edict, would seem otherwise to be perfectly
> within the forum's charter.  People don't like to be censored in this
> way (as Umbridge found out on OOtP), and they find ways around it,
> which sometimes includes starting alternative forums on their own
> which split the group.  Sometimes years of fighting ensues.
> 

Iggy here:

It's funny... I've been around the same type of electronic discussion
forums for at least as long, and while issuing a flat ban has caused
more problems than it's solved about 50% of the time, the other 50% of
the time it's actually solved the problem.  One reason it doesn't work
is when nobody got to discuss the situation in the first place.  One
reason it can work is because it calls a final end to a debate or
discussion that has been hashed out far too long and is only serving to
divide the group even further over time.

I should also state that in those same groups, you will find individuals
or small factions that are hell-bent on causing disruptions in an effort
to seize some control over the groups (I have seen this happen a number
of times... some successful, some not), cause general dissent within the
groups, or merely for malicious pleasure or revenge.  There have been
many times when banning those people is the only option.  The only
problem you run into then is that some people will find ways to log in
under new aliases and such, and keep up the disruption of the groups.

You also point out that people don't like to be censored in this way.
Well, there's a few comments I'd like to make about this:

1 - People aren't being censored.  They are objecting to something, as
you yourself claimed earlier in this same post that they have a right to
do.  What people ARE trying to say is that the subject has pretty much
been closed, a decision has been made, and the continued pressure from
people is only more likely to keep the ban in effect.  By trying to
apply that pressure, they are cutting off the flow of blood to their own
cause.

2 - You state that people who don't like the censorship can leave and
form their own group.  By all means, let them if they feel the need.
This isn't Hogwarts, where the students are required to stay and don't
have much choice in the matter.  This is more like Hogsmeade, a town
where you can move if the laws don't suit you.  Population will rise and
fall, but it will always find its balance point.

3 - I have visited your personal web-site, and I must admit that it's
well constructed.  (Stop in and see it to learn more about Dan, if you
wish...  the URL is http://dan.tobias.name/  .)  I have noticed one
thing about your site, however, and that's your crusade against
censorship.  This is a commendable cause, and one I also support... but
it only really applies to sites and such on the web as a whole.  If you
join a site, use a service, participate in a newsgroup, or interact on a
group like this, you agree to abide by the rules, regulations, and
guidelines of the owners and admin of said group.  A group, site, etc,
is not a free democracy (as one owner of an old list I was on put it),
rather it is a beneficent dictatorship.  Like it or not, the decisions
made by the admin, in an attempt to preserve the good of the group as a
whole, are binding and accepted by you in agreeing to those overlying
rules when you join.  By all rights, there are a great many posts that
can be banned, purged, or otherwise censored (and I have seen a lot of
them), yet the admin here don't do that.  All they are simply asking is
that, as a member of this community, you respect their decisions, and
while you are free to dispute them, you need to listen when they tell
you that the subject is done with.



As always, these posts by me may or may not portray my actual opinions.
They are an attempt to discuss the addressed topics in an objective,
rational, and clear manner.


Iggy McSnurd

"Critical thinking is the ability to learn how to separate the wheat
from the chaff, or pan gold from the river's silt."