On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 12:47:37PM +0100, Richard Baker wrote: > Perhaps not, but everything you've said here would suggest that you > would've handled the situation on that IRC channel differently. What > would you have done?
I said, "from your description" because I am not very familiar with irc, or your situation in particular. So I can't answer your question directly. That said, I suspect that if it were possible for members to continue normal relations on the channel while ignoring the offending remarks, then I would not have banned. If it were not possible, and there was a consensus that it was not possible, then I probably would have done what you described. There is a gray area in relation to what constitutes "possible for members to continue normal relations". The threshold of tolerance for this sort of thing is suggestive of the maturity and flexibility of a group. I am disappointed and saddened by how low many people have been trying to set the threshold of tolerance in the present situation. > (My friend has gained considerable professional help in the months > since I banned her from the channel and I've now lifted the ban. I'm > very impressed by how hard she's trying to get control of her life and > to manage her serious psychiatric problems. I think we made the right > choice - You are implying that the ban helped the person, and therefore that banning Mark will help him. I find this implication disturbing. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
