Please read this carefully.
Due to widespread abuse, political discussion has been suspended for three days. Two areas have been frozen: Politics >> General and Miscellaneous >> Evolution. If this interrupts some legitimate, civil discussion underway, we regret the inconvenience.
In the meantime, any attempt to discuss topics which would normally go under these categories will be considered a violation of the rules, and will be punished. Plainly put: do not discuss politics or evolution until this ban lapses, or there will be serious consequences.
I have noted many times in the past that it is not feasible to hold a community to a higher standard of conduct than it wishes to be held to. We have not the time or the inclination to censor much, chasten users for infractions, or settle squabbles. This leaves us with an unacceptable status quo, and three options for change:
- Bar problematic users from the political areas.
- Ban problematic users.
- End the discussion of polticial topics permanently.
We have not yet decided which direction to take, but it is unlikely that things will remain has they have been. Only constraints on our (meaning Viratas' and my) time have allowed things to go along this far in such a condition.
Beginning with the last option: we have conducted a cost/benefit analysis of prohibiting political discussion here, and found that the "cost" column is quite empty. If there was significant political dialogue taking place on a regular basis, losing it might be a personal concern, since we enjoy good debate. We should regret to preclude the
possibility of significant dialogue, but we must address our actual circumstances.
Short of this measure, it seems more practical to ban users than to attempt to modify their behavior. There seems to be a population equilibrium in communities: some natural size to which they tend to grow, and beyond which they do not. It may be, then, that we shall see other, better-behaved members replace those culled, with a net gain as a civil community. If not, at least those left will be better able to pursue serious discussion in peace.
The least likely thing would be for us to bar people from the political areas only. It may be considered, however, in the case that a person has a strong history of making real contributions to wrestling topics.
If you are wondering whether you are a person who may be banned, almost certainly you are. If, however, you remain in doubt as to how you should behave, consider whether you:
- post in order to annoy others,
- insult the people you're speaking to,
- disrupt (the infrequent) serious conversations,
- argue as if whom you're talking to is of more importance to you than what you're talking about.
On the other hand, if you feel comfortable that you know who is likely to be banned, and that for one reason or another you are safe
despite acting badly, you would do well to think again. The best that a "he started it" defense will get you is company in exile. Do not feel that you are safe because you have not been warned:
this is your warning.
You may feel free to discuss this decision here. Rest assured that you will not be punished or secretly blacklisted for disagreeing with it, though a certain level of decorum is expected here as elsewhere.
Have a good weekend.
