On 16804 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
And yes, if someone manages to go that way with another conspiracy
theory that directly affects people like this one did, I do believe
the
outcome will be the same. The ones you list above are on the comedy
side
of things. :)
You, on the other hand, seem to take the position that DAM (or some
other authority) gets to determine what "directly affects people" and
then act in response to that determination. In effect, you seem to be
advocating for the practice of "thought policing". Or do I
misunderstand what your position is?
I think you do. It was in response to the theories you selected. Clear
nut cases where the ranting is tiresome to hear, possibly, but - for
example - does not make people avoid scientifically proven methods for
protecting themselves and others.
Can we have a clear statement of what "directly affects people"?
No.
That way members of our community can have an opportunity to determine
if
what they are about to say/write might be considered problematic under
that criterion?
This seems to come from a point of view that any "wrong thing one may
write leads to an exclusion". And that's just so wrong, that even trying
to define something here is impossible - and also wrong.
We (DAMs) said it many times during numbers of similar threads. We
aren't a thought police, and we are (should be) the last instance things
end up with. And if you look at such DAM actions of the past, you will
find that DAM does not directly go and removes membership. We do try to
work with people, not against.
--
bye, Joerg
