I understand your point about prebanning, and you are right, it could be a bit of an insult - but in general the insult comes after the person banned has done something, usually insulting- so banning is also the remedy for insult, and pretty much the only one available. People don't generally ban people who have been respectful- at least not on the threads I've seen. It is possible that some threads unfairly ban people, and that moderators make mistakes. I have seen mistakes (or what I thought were mistakes) made on some threads in terms of banning, and said so- but in the end the judgment is up to the moderator to shape the conversation in the way he or she thinks is most conducive to the healthy development of the thread- and visions of health will differ. Clearly some people think a healthy thread is the same thing as a pissing match. I have a post saved in my files from each of the folks banned on my threads which reminds me just why they are banned; those posts usually contain extremely insulting language aimed at me, or others, lest I forget exactly what kind of speech they are capable of.
I understand why you would think banning is hostile and smug, although I see it as defensive- mostly because it is the only way to protect a thread from disruptive people who want to fight. I guess if a door or a gate or the walls of a house are "hostile", then it is hostile. I don't tend to think of schemes to keep out bad actors as "hostile"- but they are hostile to the interests of bad actors, I'll agree with you on that. It's not "prebanning" however- since you have been banned for what you have posted, and you have to have posted on a thread in order to get banned. |
