It seems to me that we have to distinguish between ridiculing a member (or non-member... I don't think it should matter) on the one hand and evaluating posts on the other.
I did not read any of Justin's original posts but I understood that it began with his posting of a link to a webpage which has, as a small portion of its content, a series of entries which clearly depict a BBO (and/or an OkBridge) member in a very poor light.
I do not know the extent, if any, to which Justin's reference to this website was intended or could be reasonably perceived as intending to draw attention to that portion of the site: I gather and accept that Justin did not personally intend to make that particular topic the focus of the link, but it might reasonably be perceived by others as such. And while I accept that the offending area is only a small part of the site, it is readily findable and, in itself, quite substantial. It is also, if I may express an opinion on it, quite funny is a perhaps unfortunate way.... also quite sad, in more or less the same way. Laughing at the behaviour exhibited (assuming the posts to be an accurate tale) is a guilty pleasure.
I can very easily see why the subject of that part of the site felt targeted: and a visit to that individual's own website makes it clear that he feels that he has been persecuted.
More importantly, I recognize that zero tolerance must be the rule for this forum: otherwise, as Fred's post makes clear, the forum could degenerate into censorship based solely in the extent to which an individual offends those in charge. The slippery slope argument is valid in my view.
It is the extreme cases that test our dedication to such zero tolerance approaches. I have personally witnessed some of the conduct of the 'target': I was once actually invited by him to express a view on a topic he was teaching in one of his classes.... his approach was unorthodox and, more importantly, he was dismissive of the orthodox approach without even admitting that his view was unusual (a gamblng 3N opening on a 6 card suit) I have watched him play a number of hands, altho the 'pleasure' soon palled. I was, at the time, one of those who, in kib mode, and never so that any player or he could hear it, made sarcastic remarks.. for which I am sorry. The truth is that if ever anyone set themselves up as a target, he did... with claims to a skill level that was remarkable for its lack of insight... and I say this in the context of an online community in which self-ranking has run wild.
But the point has to be that a public forum cannot directly or indirectly condone OR BE SEEN EVEN BY A SMALL MINORITY OF READERS to condone any suggestion of a campaign to humiliate any one, member or non-member.
So the link was properly (imo) removed: could it have been handled by a simple deletion, with or without a note and with or without a private email to Justin (which may have been done for all I know)? Yes, and that topic is a legitimate topic for users of this forum to debate... how would we want our troublesome posts dealt with?
And I write this aware that passages of this post could be construed as potentially adding to the troubles of the 'target', altho I hope that I have made it clear that I feel sorry for him....while his teachings and claims to expertise are deserving, in my view, of strong criticism, he personally does not deserve to be humiliated before the world.
I may get my first warning or even have part or all of this deleted
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
