Jon Pretty

La blâme n'est pas attribuée à la victime. Certes, je ne sanction pas le ban. C'est une explication *pour aider* la victime donc il peut comprendre meilleur les causes et leurs effets prévisable. Il est un ami proche, néanmoins.

It seems not legitimate to ban people because of his opinion. He don't insult or harass someone. How to not blame the ban if we think about it ?

More generally, I'm trying to make the point, to both sides, that the world is imperfect, and we can desire that it be different, but pretending it is how we desire it, rather than how it actually is, probably isn't the most pragmatic way to get through life.

I could make points that I think the ban is wrong and/or that @fommil shouldn't say certain things, but I choose not to do either because I care more about the point I was making, and didn't want to distract any part of my audience.

this is not good enough. a moderator MUST be perfect. if a mod has moral failings that preclude them from seeing a situation objectively, they should abdicate from arbitrating it. this power is not someone's toy to make their life easier. it's purely a duty, and this mod failed.

I just don't think it's possible for moderators, who are usually unpaid for their work, to have enough time to do their jobs with the sort of perfection we would like. It's difficult. That's not to say they shouldn't be striving for more objective decisions all the time.

And I'm not trying to justify any bad decisions. I'm looking at this from the perspective that the economics of maintaining a forum are such that they won't ever have the same judicial standards and due process that we'd like. We can desire it, but shouldn't pretend it exists.

yeah no there's a dozen people for every seat who would jump at the chance. You're making this out like it's some undesirable job that no one wants to do. That just isn't true.