I’ve been away from the forums for a few years studying philosophy and generally trying to do something worthwhile with my life, whilst lurking here and downloading mods and maps from time to time. I’ve never had any interaction with Sombre, and I know nothing of the specifics of this situation. Still, my shameful pedantic scholasticism compels a bit of a reply to what I see as an abuse of ‘justification’ contained in this thread.
First off, I just want to point out that, before I could post this reply, I had to ‘accept’ Shrapnel’s forum policy. I did this fully intending to violate that policy, and I actually hope to be banned in a certain sense because then my point will be made, to wit, in the grandiose jargon of ethical discourse: Shrapnel Games and Annette acted within their rights as a company and as an authority, but contrary to the principles of justice.
It seems to me indisputable that Shrapnel has the legal right to enforce whatever arbitrary rules they want to on their forums, and that Sombre, acting as he did, violated the terms of an agreement which he must have signed, and is therefore subject to the penalties enumerated etc (which include the little subclause that lets Shrapnel permaban without warning, as it were.) I don’t really think anyone wants to argue that point, so I’ll let it alone for now and move on to the second portion of my charge. Annette has stated, rather briefly, her position:
Annette:
Quote:
|
We all understand that tempers will flare and posts will be made that violate the rules we've put in place. And we appreciate cooperation when a moderator must step in to calm things down. The problem in this situation, and the reason I exercised our right to escalate beyond our infraction system, is that Sombre indicated to us that he did not intend to honor our requests to follow the standards we expect of all our users and that he would ignore future private messages asking him to refrain from using personal attacks. Would a temporary ban change his mind? So we're faced with the question, do we allow one user to post in a manner that we would not tolerate from anyone else?
|
That is to say, Sombre merited a more extreme penalty because, in addition to the initial offence, he committed the secondary offence of Lack of Respect for Rules. Thus, Annette acted expeditiously to preserve the integrity of the forum system, since the standard protocol would, clearly, not have worked.
The trouble, of course, is that “Lack of Respect for Rules” is simply not an offence. Even in the form Annette wishes to characterize it, “Intent to Re-offend,” it isn’t an offence. It’s not an offence under Shrapnel’s own terms of use, and it isn’t an offence to Universal Justice. Mill’s dictum in On Liberty applies here- do what thou wilt, unless it harms the liberty of others. What Annette (I’m using “Annette” metonymically here, because of course it’s easier to write a polemic against a person than against a company.) proposes is pure thoughtcrime, pure victimless crime. It’s simply not the case that “Intent to disturb the peace” translates into “Disturbance of the peace.”
Even more damning, the thoughtcrime in question wasn’t even intent, but merely the aforementioned ‘lack of respect.’ I, personally, do not respect the Hate Speech Act (in Canada.) I view it as an unconstitutional limitation on our right to free speech. But that does NOT MEAN that I can be convicted of Hate Crimes unless I am demonstrably inciting hatred. Nor does it indicate intent to be hateful, nor does it demonstrate that I am a bigot. Sombre’s ‘secondary offence’ amounts to no more than that. In a court of law, it would be meaningless.
Shrapnel Community forums are not a court of law, and Annette is under no obligation to be just. However, to the extent that Annette’s decision reflects Shrapnel Policy, that policy must be regarded as unjust, and, following Thoreau, we are morally obliged to ignore it. So we come full circle: Sombre’s action not as contemptible indication of a poisonous mind, but as moral necessity. OF COURSE we shouldn’t give a rat’s arse about the rules, or about punishments. What we should care about is justice.
Valandil Out.