[matilda] crime and punishment - drunken yobs

[atw]

zomaz> It's not about authoritarianism. It's about not accepting violence.


I think it is both which is a bit of contradiction. Mr Blair and Mr
Bush didn't accept the violence of Saddam Hussain so they bombed him.



zomaz> If people can be violent in the Matilda without any consequences to
zomaz> themselves, then it sets a precedent.

zomaz> Let's say J & R don't get banned. Does that mean I can hit someone if I
zomaz> feel that they have provoked me?

Is that what you want to do? Is that the way you behave outside
Matilda? Is it your loyal adherence to the guidelines that stop you
doing so inside?

If J & R don't get banned why would that mean people think it's OK for
you to hit someone???? That doesn't follow at all. Its a false
dichotomy - there are other possibilities.



zomaz> Or if I am completely bladdered?

People do sometimes hit each other when drunk. Its a fact of life. If
that is really the problem then the banning of alcohol would surely be
more effective.




zomaz> Let's not be too liberal here. I really think that the small ban I
zomaz> suggested will help keep drunken yobbery out of the Matilda.

Firstly I think that's quite offensive and alienating language. I
drink and get pissed, so do you and a lot of others.

Maybe it will keep those you want out - at least for the duration of
the ban.

But it will affect everyone because it leads to another, much bigger
problem. That is who decides who gets banned? It seems to me what you
are proposing, if its to be done fairly, will require some kind of
trial, with jurors to decide. Such a solution is leading Matilda into
a carbon copy of mainstream society. Besides which - what a massive
waste of people's time and energy.

There is a further problem with this suggestion. You say it's based on
the idea of not accepting any violence. So what happens if a banned
person ends up in Matilda and refuses to leave? What do we do then?
Let them stay in which case the whole thing is farce and will lose its
force. Or evict them violently which means we all partake in what was
supposed to be the original problem.

Talking about bans in this context seems to me, a very wrongheaded way
of thinking?

steve