Whilst we all travel different threads, I'm sure we see the same:
1. Some posts that have intelligent analysis, well-reasoned opinion, yet contain a random off-color word. I can usually live with this given the other qualities of the post.
2. Some posts have no redeeming qualities -- the "Mary" incidents on Monday's uncivil thread. All shock, no stock.
SI's four rules are simple, but they do get broken on most threads I visit, most days I visit (which is everyday -- what an addict I am).
I like the jailhouse idea. It sounds very damp =) But somebody has to judge. I'd hate to lose #1 because of #2. Then again, some people wouldn't mind seeing #1 go as well. And that compromises my freedom as well as #1s. A few posts ago, you mentioned that a poster's intent should be self-evident, and given benefit of doubt when not. I like that, too. But, again, somebody has to judge. And if SI doesn't want to, who will?
It's really messy banishing people because of something said; even if they were "clearly wrong". You start getting cases where a person is "clearly, mostly, wrong,". And then you've got cases "a little less wrong" than that.
[Maybe, "The tolerance of fruit preserves is sticky"]
-MrB |
