View Single Post

Old 03-17-2010, 11:31 AM   #80
Love
Senior Member

Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,207
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

This is a defining moment for , I believe.

I will be repeating what I've said before:

To Gab and those who agree with her, yes indeed, this is Lecktor's house. He can do as he pleases.

But this is also a community built on certain promises, implicit in the very name of this web site.

I won't claim to fully understand the ideal, but I do get the overall sense that is built on one key ideal: no censorship except when we need censorship.

Hence we do not ban (the ultimate censorship) or close threads. Or have admins change people's posts. Moderation is expected to be *very* light.

Thing like revealing RL stuff, spamming, stalking, or breaking the law are all times when we do need to have censorship, because we are (mostly) decent people and don't want this place to be too much of a shit hole.

When do we, as a community, need to censor? Well, I'll tell you this, it isn't when the membership is as divided as we are about whether this particular banning should stand once the emotions have faded. Very few are going to argue Angel's banning, but many are arguing Nina's. And not because such people like Nina, necessarily. Obviously.

So, it's Lecktor's house. But we are here on a promise. If he doesn't fulfill this promise, then we have been duped.

We do have a right to know if the situation here isn't what we expected it to be, because as a group, *we* make this community, not Lecktor. Lecktor facilitates it, but we are the soul of it.

But I say this: if is to fulfill the ideals I understand it to be built on, Nina's ban should be reversed.
Love is offline   Reply With Quote
This user groaned at this post:
4 users say thanks:
10 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)
2 users disagree: