Posted by Clarification [Rick] on November 01, 1999 at 19:24:02 {2gTL9dbN6k7ajbiu2wnkFMFBt36Xyc}:
In Reply to: PUBLIC VOTE!!! posted by Moderator102 on November 01, 1999 at 17:10:54:
I'm sure you and others were aware of this, but just to recap that banning is not a form of "disfellowshiping." It's necessary to keep the board from self-destructing through abuse of the FPP.
I also favor starting with a one-week ban (as was the case with Tallyman), and then 2 weeks, then 4 weeks. I don't think more than 4 weeks serves any purpose except if someone has really committed hateful attacks on this site of a destructive nature, posted repeat obscenities or pornography, and the overwhelming majority pose a permanent ban.
Again, banning is NOT disfellowshiping or anything remotely like it. Disfellowshiping means punishment of someone for their beliefs as well as their behavior, legislating moral sanctions that might not harm others rather than prohibiting harmful conduct, and requiring others to shun that person.
Clearly we don't legislate or control beliefs or conduct except when it involves postings that are off-topic or not in harmony with our site's intended purpose. Someone repeatedly posting baseball scores and warned could get banned for a week because they refuse to take their posts to the appropriate newsgroup, or simply refrain from posting them on H2O. Someonee who states "I'm an atheist" and respectfully discusses the possibilities of God's existence within good acceptable etiquette guidelines might, conversely, remain on this site.
Obviously in the above contrasting situation, someone will say indignantly, "you mean it's wrong for Josh to post baseball scores, but right for Jan to express an opinion that God doesn't exist???????"
No, that is not what we mean. It is RIGHT for Josh to post baseball scores on an acceptable forum such as alt.sports.baseball, but wrong for him to use bandwidth posting scores "off-topic" on a site for discussion about matters pertaining to JWs. Conversely, it is WRONG from a Biblical standpoint for Jan to challenge God's existence, but it is his RIGHT to do so respectfully within the framework of our policies if this facilitates discussion on God's existence. (Even Jesus didn't forbid challengers to call down evil on his Father; here, we might censor calling down evil on God but allow the questioning of God's existence for purposes of articulating the reasons for our belief in God as JWs.)
Unfortunately, in a rule-based system it's sort of like law. The shoplifter who is caught redhanded spends a few days in jail, and the corporate executive looting the firm of its securities or cash who covers his tracks gets away scott free. You cannot just point to that executive and state "I'm sure he's guilty as sin! Arrest him!" You have to prove it. You can't point at Jan Haugland, for example, and say "I'm sure his being on this site is to convert others to atheism!" As long as he's here discussing matters within the FPP, we would be hypocites to arbitrarily ban him as some would like to see happen. In the same vein, some JWs say "I'm sure Fred Hall doesn't mean to cause trouble and we should show tolerance!" When the fact is he's repeatedly violating the FPP. Those same people wouldn't tolerate Fred Hall if he was a devout atheist, would they?
Forum Director 1 has volunteered for this area of responsibility which entails making these difficult decisions, and I appreciate that. I'm not here enough (as one who stops in daily but skims, due to lack of time), to really know the pros and cons of Fred Hall's situation. If FD1 decides to ban Fred, then he should post this and I'll deactivate Fred's posting privileges for 1 week for the first offense (unless FD1 has a compelling reason to go longer). Then if it starts again and FD1 says to ban, it's 2 weeks, etc., until we reach 4 weeks. After that, it's not that big a deal because if Fred is a "perennial violator" of the FPP he will fade in and out every other month, which is a long time. Banning over a month is saved for the really bad offenders.
Sometimes when people hurt, they try to garner attention like big babies. It's possible Fred is someone hurting who has fabricated his persona to get attention, in order to forget about his hurt. If he could try coming to terms with his feelings, then he could understand there are ones who are hurting 100 fold more than he, who are silent and simply read posts. If everyone tried to be the center of attention because they hurt, then nobody would benefit for long (the board would self-destruct).
It is not against the FPP to be against "apostates" or have strong anger toward them, just as it's not against the FPP to feel the same toward JWs. If Fred would focus on the qualities he does not like in "apostates" within the FPP, then those who fall into his criteria of being "apostates" can defend themselves. This is what H2O is all about, discussing differences.
Someone could make us mad as hell because they are so cold and unloving toward "apostates," but if we ban them then we'd have to ban those who are cold and unloving toward JWs and their GB. If we could all stay civilized and talk it out, even if we do it coldly at first, then maybe we could see how pointless our differences (or understand valid differences we cannot change)?
I'll wait to hear from FD1. Thank you all for your concerns expressed.
Rick