Re: Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code of Conduct

Hi! > I think we should have used temporary bans a bit more to cool down > things. Including to myself along other. Ban is a very dangerous thing, since it excludes people from discussion thus preventing it from reaching a conclusion, achieving consensus and closure, and it also hurts people and labels them ("ah, this guy who was already banned stirs up things again? let's just ignore him, he's obviously a troll"). Stopping discussion by ban breeds resentment on the banned side and taints whatever the other side achieved with "if I only were not banned, I would prove you are wrong". Of course, there might be cases where behavior turns destructive to the point consensus just can not be reached, but if the person is still committed to overall goals of the project, neutral third-party moderation would usually help. Not 100% of cases, but usually. At least that's my conviction. So I think using bans more "to cool things down" would not be healthy. Using neutral third party to advise people to cool down (and maybe take a break) might be. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com