Thread:Bourgeoisie/@comment-4552817-20150216091843/@comment-33628828-20150220021425

What are you guys talking about? From what I recall, there were two points of controversy - both involving me and not really having much to do with Meiko.

First, I asked about homeschooling - I was wondering what exposure homeschooled kids get to other groups of people. This question stemmed mainly from the fact that I was not homeschooled and know nobody who was. Really not sure why people would be offended at this or how it is controversal. Second, when Meiko joked that he would never go to Canada (I'M SO OFFENDED) and that I should go down to the 'states, I said not until they fix their political system.

This comment isn't my own personal opinion, nor is it just trolling. Within the world of political science - a field that I study - the US is considered to have a largely ineffective political system compared to other countries, and actually ranks relatively low on indices of personal and economic freedom and democracy. Ironic, given the stream of rhetoric coming from the 'states. This is what really set one person off, and I assume this is where the "be civil" comment came from, but what is not civil about this? I was joking with Meiko. Nobody should be offended at this; it's objective reality, not an attack. And this wasn't even discussed - it was literally just the one joke that I made to Meiko and vice versa.

The fact is that the majority of the people and mods on LMBW are awesome. Overall, I like hanging around here. But there is an interesting subset of mods who don't understand how bans/blocks should be used on a wiki, and an interesting subset of users apparently so insecure with their country that any hint of a dissenting comment makes them call for that voice to be silenced. Contrast this to what those same users are talking about at other times - how being Christian is superior, debating who is the better Christian, talking down on other countries (read: Canada, yes this has happened multiple times while I was in chat here). Incivil here apparently means any conversation of topics that you don't like. "I'm offended, so this can't be discussed anymore." Censorship at its finest.

Back to this case. If Bourg was trolling, then so was Damastermind because he was engaging in the debate as well. So was I - someone supposedly trusted to not do that. So why is Damastermind not banned? He was being far worse than Bourg. Bourg was critiquing him for what he was saying, whereas Damastermind was just flinging personal and ad hominum attacks. So ban them both if you think that there was abuse to be prevented. But really, what abuse could you prevent by banning someone after an incident was resolved? Answer: none. So remove the ban. If you think Bourg is just here to troll, then indefinitely block him; stop dancing around with this nonsense.

As a general rule when trying to see if your ban was justified: look at the reaction. This ban has generated textwalls on both sides, and there are people who clearly think it was justified and not. That isn't the reaction you want to a ban. It shouldn't be an edgy proposal; this isn't a vote. It is enforcement of wiki policy. That should be much, much more cut and dry than this is. Excessively-liberal use of the ban button will lead to reactions like this. While I do understand that actually being present and trying to mediate disputes is more work, I would recommend it over powerplays like this.

All the best.