Mame wrote:This thread is quite a surprise. We are grown ups here and shouldn't need moderating. If you don't like someone or what someone has written, scroll on by, click out, whatever. Why should banning take place? Those who write offensive things will be dealt with by the community, as it usually does.
Any suggestion that this community is being ruined by a few bad apples is ludicrous. It will only happen if we let it.
There are a few people here who break the TOS on a regular basis. Some of the language is downright foul and some of the sentiments really nasty and repugnant, leaving me shaking my head that someone would actually advertise themselves that way. All I can do is try to avoid them and their posts, but I don't think they are 'ruining' the community.
The problem with the 'we're grown ups who should be able to moderate ourselves like we do in the real world is that we're not in the real world. If the Water-Bigot busted in on EVERY single political conversation he encountered in the real world with the same dimwitted non-contributions, the retribution would be quick and compelling. Online, he seems to enjoy it. The rapist would be lucky to walk out with his teeth in his pocket, rather than leaving in the trunk of someone's car. Too many folks take advantage of their anonymity to wantonly offend in ways they could never get away with in person.
The result is some of our sweetest members hesitating to participate because A-holes like the rapist disgust them to their core each and every time they encounter them. Same with members like the pedophile who very well may use the site to identify like-minded sickos with whom he can trade heinous material. I don't pretend to have a vote, nor do I feel entitled to one. But, as a business man myself, I would never forfeit my right to refuse business to any person for any reason. Were I Craven; it would matter not at all that the rapist follows the TOS. His presence serves only to disgust decent people and encourage likeminded A-holes.
The United States is a country of Laws which often need to supersede the sensibilities of majorities. A2K as a privately owned entity does not. I respect Craven's integrity and I'm not suggesting Craven should pick and choose based on who he likes (hell, I might not even make such a cut), but when the worst scum mankind has to offer show up, and begin scaring off decent people, I see no good reason to keep them around. There is no shortage of hyper partisan non-contributors tolerated to prove this a tolerant community, without catering to misogynistic pieces of garbage and defenders of child porn. Banning the worst of the worst, if you do happen to become aware of them, doesn't require a lot of moderation, nor a clear cut policy. A sense of decency should suffice and in cases like the rapist; you would receive not one single solitary complaint.
