And we will most likely have to add some sub-optimal choices to the moderator pool, simply because now we are selecting for a factor that we otherwise wouldn’t value.
Ahh, I see what’s happening. You’re thinking of my suggestion as “Don’t ban people who’s opinion you disagree with.”
But that’s not actually what I meant. You’re very welcome to disagree with the person you ban—it’s just that you shouldn’t ban them BECAUSE you find their opinion objectionable.
Doesn’t that become equivalent to saying that you cannot be banned for saying generally offensive things? It is better than my original interpretation—people can now be banned for being illogical, unintelligible, repetitive, and even unresponsive, but they still can’t be banned for for being intentionally offensive—whether through extreme positions (women should be forced to have sex) or insults/obscenities. I suppose that you could batch those under illogical?
Edit: I overlooked the obvious case of being able to ban someone for posting multiple low-rep posts—that should cover the last of my objections. Thank you for explaining!
No, if someone is being intentionally offensive in a trolling way, this rule says nothing about it either way. Likewise, it doesn’t say anything one way or the other about low rep posts.
However, if someone has a position that you find offensive, but is being reasonable about presenting their opinion and is not just trying to start a flamewar, then that’s not sufficient cause for banning under this rule.
Ahh, I see what’s happening. You’re thinking of my suggestion as “Don’t ban people who’s opinion you disagree with.”
But that’s not actually what I meant. You’re very welcome to disagree with the person you ban—it’s just that you shouldn’t ban them BECAUSE you find their opinion objectionable.
Doesn’t that become equivalent to saying that you cannot be banned for saying generally offensive things? It is better than my original interpretation—people can now be banned for being illogical, unintelligible, repetitive, and even unresponsive, but they still can’t be banned for for being intentionally offensive—whether through extreme positions (women should be forced to have sex) or insults/obscenities. I suppose that you could batch those under illogical?
Edit: I overlooked the obvious case of being able to ban someone for posting multiple low-rep posts—that should cover the last of my objections. Thank you for explaining!
No, if someone is being intentionally offensive in a trolling way, this rule says nothing about it either way. Likewise, it doesn’t say anything one way or the other about low rep posts.
However, if someone has a position that you find offensive, but is being reasonable about presenting their opinion and is not just trying to start a flamewar, then that’s not sufficient cause for banning under this rule.