[OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

[DeWitt Clinton]

It's not fair to single out David for that action.

I, for one, wholeheartedly supported it.  Asked for it, actually.

I'm also boggled why people are arguing *against* asking people to leave
when they cross the line and start attacking other people.

-DeWitt

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 2009-11-29, at 5:20 PM, Andrew Arnott wrote:
>
>  On 11/30/2009 04:50 AM, Dick Hardt:
>
>>  I would propose that we adopt the Microformats policy except for #16 (and number them!), allow Santosh back on the list, apologize for banning him, and direct him at the new policy and ask that he (and others) comply.
>>
>>
>> Eddy replied:
>
>> Dick, myself am not famous for overly diplomatic tones sometimes, but
>> calling somebody a stupid, idiotic, prejudiced human being, warrants some
>> actions in my opinion. That the list should even apologize to the offender
>> seems to me ridiculous. If the participants don't value themselves and their
>> dignity, they deserve none.
>>
>
> +~1 to Eddy.  I don't think we should return injury for injury.  Everyone
> should be treated with respect IMO.  But those who refuse to treat others
> with respect don't need to be privileged by the community with a medium by
> which their disrespect can be more easily transmitted.
>
>
> ... and who is the judge of what is respectful? Why are you choosing the
> path of punishment vs education? Why not enlightenment over banishment?
>
> Imagine what a force Santosh would be for OpenID if he was encouraged to
> particpate in a productive manner? Imagine how he views the OpenID community
> now?
>
>
> Dick also said:
>
>> I disagree with removing Santosh from the mail list. I prefer a fully
>> inclusive community.
>
>
> Wanting a fully inclusive community, but in which community personal
> attacks are allowed, is a paradox IMO.  I think what we want here is a
> useful forum in which many viewpoints on OpenID-related issues can be
> discussed.  We lose that when personal attacks threaten to encourage
> respectful people with good ideas to leave the mailing list.
>
>
> I am not condoning Santosh's behaviour. I am criticizing how it was dealt
> with.
>
>
> Dick again:
>
>> While I can empathize with the frustration of someone not being what we
>> consider respectful,
>
>
> I'll be bold enough to say it was *very *disrespectful.  To say merely
> that "someone might not consider Santosh's comments to be respectful" is an
> insult to those he flamed IMO.  This isn't really a correction to your
> words, Dick, as it looks from context that you were speaking of the general
> danger of this rather than this specific case.
>
>
> Being disrespectful is subjective. I don't want to argue about it. If you
> thought it was disrespectful, did you email Santosh off list and suggest how
> he could be more respectful?
>
> I actually wasn't offended at Santosh's attack on me, because it was
> obvious to me he spoke in the heat of the moment.  However if we really want
> this "all inclusive *of ideas*" community, it's very important that people
> don't attack others personally when they don't like the ideas that those
> others are sharing.
>
>
> That is an ideal we can strive for. Does banning Santosh going to encourage
> that?
>
> In my view, you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. If
> you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Inaction
> is being part of the problem.
>
> IMHO banning Santosh did not solve anything. It was a divisive action
> instead of a unifying action. As much as I respect what David has done for
> OpenID, and value action over talk: this was a situation where discussion
> needed to occur prior to action.
>
> -- Dick
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091129/24f0d700/attachment-0001.htm>