I, too, have been disturbed by certain behavior exhibited in this process, and
wondered how best to reply. However, I am concerned that the medicine will be
worse than the disease. And, we may administer placebos which do no more than
satisfy our "need" to respond.
Mikael Pawlo [correctly] wrote:
> There should be some ground for throwing people out of the
> process, no matter how disturbing management and the public might find
> them. (emphasis added)
And, there are other problems.
1. Unless (even if?) you set up a secure system, an offender will come back as
a different persona.
2. The discussion can get side-tracked defining the rules and applying
sanctions.
3. "Offense" is subjective. We strongly disagree on what crosses the line
enough to support mention, no less a sanction. And,
4. such sanctions are subject to abuse.
Thus, I would invoke Dave Crocker's oft prescribed remedy--each of us should
filter/shun/ignore those we deem so distracting/abusive/offensive. That, in my
opinion, is the safest course.
