On 3 January 2018 at 15:49, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am not in favor of anyone else deciding for me that I am not allowed to > see Tony's (or anyone else's) messages on this list. I can make that > decision myself, and revisit that decision myself should I choose. > > If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) they > are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his > messages when they see fit. >
The problem is that off-topic and insensitive messages tend to draw in other people, and distract energy away from what we're all here for. If enough people ignore someone, it's basically a "shadowban", which are generally highly controversial, because they give the illusion of allowing someone to participate without any of the actual value. On the other hand, if enough people engage with someone who's ignored, the flamewars show up anyway - filtering systems are rarely sophisticated enough to block replies to a blocked message. I'm sure everyone would agree that the best course of action would be for everyone to take a deep breath, step away from any arguments they're in (something I've had to do myself), and concentrate on positive proposals and listening respectfully to people with differing opinions. But sometimes an enforced timeout is the best way to get someone to take that deep breath. Moderation is always tricky, but pretty much every forum I've ever used has had it in some form. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
