juan wrote:
Jason Cobb via agora-discussion [2022-08-29 13:23]:
We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.
Title: Unfortunately
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 869 by appending the following paragraph:
{
Banned is a secured negative boolean person switch. A person is
unwelcome if e is Banned or if at least one part of em is unwelcome.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an unwelcome person CANNOT
register or be registered, and e is immediately deregistered if e is
ever a player. Designations of unwelcomeness are secured.
[snip]
But it's not. In adopting it, we would be stating clearly that we
believe in ostracism, and, most worringly for me, that we believe in
punishment for life.
[snip]
* Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them,
and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and
unlimited). Times change, and so should we.
* We should have formal processes that implement some form of
restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme
measures such as ostracism should prevail.
I don't disagree with either of these points, but I do disagree with
your characterization of this proto as clearly going against them (at
least the first one). It doesn't add any specified mechanism for
actually flipping a person's Banned switch, in either direction;
presumably that would be left up to proposals of the form "Flip
<person>'s Banned switch to <true/false>". And presumably such a
proposal would generate plenty of careful discussion, but adopting
rules along the lines of "a Banned switch can only be flipped if
<this process> was attempted and failed to achieve acceptable
resolution" may be a good idea; something similar to Defendant's
Rights, but addressing the rights of the people on both sides of
a "maybe this calls for a ban" dispute.
