On Sunday 27 October 2013 08:54:30 Enrico Zini wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting > > any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would > > I'm in favour of not posting names but links to the posts that led to > the ban. That it solves the problem of google-shaming is welcome, but > marginal to me. The most important thing to me in doing that, is that we > make it clear that "we banned you from the list for what you did", > instead of "we banned you from the list for what you are". > > That subtle distinction in the message is very important to me, because > it makes the distinction from a community where I'm judged for what I > am, to a community where I'm judged for what I do. > > In the former, the incentive is to do as little public activity as > possible, because it might turn into stigma. Places that work in that > way see very little involvement from me. > > In the latter, I'm happy to participate and take my chances, because I > know that if I screw up I can learn something from my mistakes, grow up > and do better next time.
+1. -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
