This is a typical mindset of a woman (so-called "woman's reason"). I didn't say that I hate them because I don't. I just prefer to stay away from such people in real life, that's all
Sarcasm. This does seem like a personal vendetta against such type of people, which is not a valid argument
Why do I feel like your post was actually intended as a hidden accusation in sexism?
Nevertheless, if I don't walk along the railroad tracks, it is a personal vendetta against trains, right? And if I stay away from road traffic, it is a personal vendetta against automobiles, correct? I might prefer ground transport to airline services, but it would be no less than my personal vendetta against airplanes, wouldn't it? I can only assume how many peeps reported on me in the past, though I'm not copy-pasting other users' posts (apart from quoting them, of course) or involved in account-farming. To be honest, sometimes I even regret the latter, namely, that I didn't register a few hundred accounts along with this one back then (to sell them later for a profit), which was not against the rules if I'm not mistaken. But how would you personally treat the people who might have been reporting on you without having anything to do with your life or any reason to interfere with it? Obviously, I don't speak about occasional reporters who see some user copy-pasting another user's post (since this is a permaban in any dimension). I talk mainly about people who totally lose their marbles when they are going after alleged "lawbreakers" here (i.e. compulsive headhunters). I guess you are more familiar with these types than me
The things which you consider as helpful to the headhunters (let's call them so since it seems to be a fitting name), namely, introducing the Banned rank and similar things (including modlog scripts) would actually be slowly killing the forum not helping it, making it into a sort of police state as has already been noted.
Classic non sequitur. Your conclusion could either be true or false, but you assume that it will inevitably be true which makes your statement a fallacy. That is, unless you have 'proof' to back something like this up.
I'm really fascinated how people can't see the forest for the trees
I don't deny that making permabans public (or any bans, for that matter) could somehow help headhunters as well as moderators, but people don't see that it will mainly serve the purpose of bullying and intimidating folks here (see the Law of
Unintended Consequences for more info). And still more so if the bans are made visible without revealing the information who gave the ban and for what exactly. In the latter case, anonymous bans would be a total perversion of the idea behind Bitcoin, in a truly Orwellian manner. When I started a thread about the necessity of cancelling Bitcoin halvings on purely economic grounds, I was quickly stigmatized as a traitor to the Bitcoin community and a heretic to the Bitcoin ideals, but I don't see a lot of people rising in righteous indignation against this idea of introducing public bans, though it is even more contrary to the fundamental principles of Bitcoin (namely, giving people freedom from the diktat of the government)
Deisik might be refering to something specific that I only vaguely remember myself. The idea that every community over a certain size needs some sort of enforcer to maintain a set of rule that have been agreed on in one way or another. Problems occured over when a few of these enforcers had been too pushy when enacting the rules. This eventually led to a split within the community. There was a specific community where this happened and I suspect that deisik either has heard of it, something similar or came to a similar conclusion based on different events.
@Deisik if this sounds only vaguely familiar to you, please let me know. I wanted to look into the story for quite some time, but forgot too many details to get a good starting point
In fact, I didn't mean anything such apart from how much that would remind me of 1984