Should there be a "WAR Zone"?

[jbotti]

As for the ousting of Josh, I learned of what he had done, and find that kind of action inexcusable for a forum such as this, and in no way do I condone it.  However, there was at least one post in the "One Mountain" thread that I found very confrontational and was a direct attack on Josh.  I consider that as lowering oneself to the same level as Josh (well, perhaps not quite as low, as his subsequent actions showed).  But in such an argument, if one person says or does something low and underhanded, does that mean the other has justification to lower their own standards of behaviour and hit below the belt too? Not in my eyes.

I never asked for Bush to be banned and I was aksed that question. Bring him back. I am happy to leave.

[midwif]

I never asked for Bush to be banned and I was aksed that question. Bring him back. I am happy to leave.

There have been many confrontational posts on this forum from a variety of posters.
They have mostly been kept.
Many, I have found distasteful, but as stated elsewhere, most of you are can handle yourselves.

Personally, I wanted to try and keep this place ban-free, but found it impossible to adhere to that goal and
and also prevent maliciousness from being allowed to flourish on the site.

L.

[jim-ratliff]

Just to be clear, I wouldn't ask a member if she/he would like someone to be blocked (so if John is referring to me above, I messed up), and I doubt that I would respond positively in the unlikely event that someone made such a request.

I believe this to be purely the domain of the Moderators, this is not a democracy at that point in time, and there was never any doubt in my mind that Bushwacka's actions merited our response.

Obviously, we have involved ourselves publicly and privately in conversations, including suggesting to people that it might be time to just walk away from a topic (something difficult for any of us to do).  In fact, I even remember publicly complimenting Bushwacka once for not responding to JBotti baiting him.

However, each of us ultimately chooses where, when and under what conditions we want to participate, INCLUDING ME.  For Bush to say "Here's the way it's going to be if you want me back" triggers the reaction that "I don't want anyone to participate" but I do "want everyone to feel welcome to participate".  But no individuals participation is important enough to ignore the guidelines even if their initials were HH or BB or even LCS. For John to imply that he wouldn't participate if Bush were allowed to return, that's a decision that each of us makes as situations change.

Self moderated, see the underlined part.