Re this new FFL regime where members are banned after posting offensive messages. There's a division between those, like me, to whom an insult on a topical website simply makes me shrug my shoulders - like water off a duck's back, to mix my metaphors; and those to whom FFL is a "spiritual" site and members should have a certain, minimum consideration of the feelings of those they disagree with.
Here's the thing: there used to be a rule that those who posted too many messages over a period would be banned from the site for a week or whatever. Now that Buck has volunteered to be the site's censor why not allow him to ban someone who is offensive for a week at a time (not permanently)? That way anyone who persistently abused others would, as persistently, be banned from posting to the site. Would that not be a reasonable compromise? One difference from the rule when posters were ostracised for too many messages is that that sanction was automatically triggered when the counter indicated someone had got too fond of the sound of his own voice. Whether someone is offensive is clearly a subjective judgement. Buck has taken on the role - isn't he a true believer? So won't he come down hardest on those who take a more sceptical view of TM and MMY? But setting aside that issue - Buck is the one who volunteered to take on the role, and I wouldn't like the job! - wouldn't my "modest proposal" be an acceptable solution?
