 |
 |
I'd support removing or somehow couching language about any organizer, including any volunteer, immediately ending a talk. All the other sanctions seem to involve the likelihood of deliberation involving some time and multiple people, and some possibility of a misunderstanding being cleared up. I don't think a single volunteer—who, in theory, is granted the power to ban someone for life!—is going to ban someone or refuse to post a talk online without thinking about it for a while and involving other organizers. By their nature, however, something said in the middle of a talk doesn't admit of much in the way of deliberation between organizers, or time to deliberate, and you can't really finish a talk ended by someone if other organizers persuade the volunteer that they made a mistake. The action has to be taken quickly, by someone who hasn't talked it through with others and is largely irreversible. It's a recipe for controversy and disagreement, and potential unfairness. I propose that the right reaction to an offensive talk is for people to walk out of it while it's going on, and to deal with any sanctions required AFTER the talk is over, when there's time and space to get the decision right. Sincerely, Tim Spalding LibraryThing