HACKER Q&A
📣 boltonia

Shouldn’t Michael O. Church be unbanned by now?


Anon for obvious reasons, but I’ve been here 10+ years and have low five-digit karma.

I get that he was sometimes argumentative but it doesn’t sit well with me that we silenced him, or that I am part of a community whose moderators went out of their way to destroy a good man’s reputation.

Shouldn’t we welcome him back? It makes us look bad to have silenced him.

  👤 nkurz Accepted Answer ✓
I think you are begging the question that he was wrongly banned. It's long enough that I forgot the details (or never knew them) but I doubt he was banned for simply being argumentative. If his presence is bad for the site, then no, we shouldn't welcome him back. If having him here is good for the site, then he shouldn't have been banned in the first place.

Separately, could you explain why you created a new account for this question? It's not obvious to me. I think the implication is that you fear repercussion for asking the question. Personally, I think this is an unnecessary fear. In any case, I think it undercuts your argument and makes me wonder about your motivations.

👤 giantg2
"It makes us look bad to have silenced him."

Does it make us look bad? Why?

I have no background on the user other than the links posted by others. Sounds like he there were warned multiple times not to call names and they did again.

Maybe people should be allowed back, maybe on probation, after some time has passed. I assume that's an informal process of appealing to dang.

👤 HeyLaughingBoy
> the chilling effect on other contributors who are still here

What chilling effect? Not being an asshole? I'm OK with that.