Not So Fast

Am I alone in thinking this is a very very bad thing?

Oh sure, the blanket amnesty has allowed me to return from exile following my second unceremonious banning, and for that I should be grateful.  But what am I returning to?  Up to this point, Voice of Arizona has been an imperfect democracy with a haphazardly enforced and loosely worded Constitution (the Terms of Use).  With this latest announcement, VofA official becomes a lawless anarchy.  The town is now a shoot 'em up free-for-all.  I wonder which old familiar gunslingers will come riding back to town?  I wonder about the new rustlers who will soon discover that the town has no Sheriff.  Will the townspeople rejoice in their new freedoms to say what they want when they want, or will they cower in their shops?

So, no more moderating and no more banning.  Odd, because I thought this place suffered from too little oversight, not too much.  What then will happen when personal identities are revealed or physical threats made?  Will we as a collecting body wag our finger and say tsk tsk?  Will there really be no response if someone comes here to advertise their web building services in one article after another, and smears BBB Systems in the process?  Are all forms of spamming permissable?  What about porn?  Sorry, but I don't think that VONA throwing its hands up and abdicating any responsibility for what happens here is an effective plan to preserve this site.

Our democracy has freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and it also has laws to ensure (ideally) that one man's freedoms don't trample those of another.  The problem up to now is that BBB Systems has been so wildly successful in their other ventures that they now have scant time to peruse these pages to enforce a basic etiquetee of respect; a strictly enforced code that would make this site welcoming to all and a threat to none.  This is understandable, but there are workarounds. 

One way is to find one person at BBB that can be trusted to be non-partisan with the temporary ban button, but not demure in using that button when the conversation becomes abusive or inappropriate.  If that person cannot be found, the task should be given to four of the most prolific members; two on the left and two on the right.  This would be the Security Council.  When potential abuse is observed and agreed upon by three of the four members of the Security Council, then a temporary ban is placed against the offender.  Since I am suggesting this arrangement, I will opt out of any such council to avoid a conflict of interests.

Whatever the approach, the enforcement of a basic code of conduct is the only way this forum will survive in any meaningful way.  By meaningful, I mean a place that will attract new members and allow all of them a way to exchange ideas with some reasonable level of courtesy and respect.  That's best for the members, and it is best for the web hosts.  Taking away all rules is a recipe for disaster and a race to the bottom. 

Many of us have been here for years, and we know the potential that this website has.  Mechanically and stylistically, it is simply the best blogging and discussion site out there.  With consistent unbiased oversight and a judicious and timely use of temporary bans to show that the owners mean business, I have no doubt that this place will be the go-to spot on the internet.  Alternatively, with the hands-off, come-what-will approach announced today by the management, this place will soon replace Lord of the Flies as a case study in how quickly otherwise good people can descend into savagery.  "Good Luck" indeed.