No one is criticising the moderators for banning the sociopath. What is being criticised, I thing, is the view some moderators have apparently taken of holding the person with the mental illness fully responsible despite, well, their mental illness. And then a third person whose role in facilitating this has not been fully explained.
These decisions simply require time and conversation. The question of how to deal with an abuse of trust mitigated by mental illness is really complicated, even when all the facts are established. I doubt anyone has reached a fully-formed conclusion.
However, here's the thing: we can either have instant transparency, or you can have fully-formed explanations and arguments. Both are not possible. I think the Mod Team has previously erred toward waiting for transparency until final decisions are reached. I don't think that model is working, and it's time to be more transparent. But that means the membership needs to understand that conversations are ongoing, and not get upset when they see the Mod Team still researching or considering.
I, personally, don't blame the mods for being angry-- as I explained earlier, I understand that being angry with having personal and sensitive information leaked, and being misled as to the source of that leak, is a perfectly normal reaction. But I object to the tone coming from some, mainly you and Nym, that seems to completely disregard just how Tweed took advantage of BK's mental issues, which BK had described to Tweed in detail, and BK's compulsive desire, stemming from those issues, to seek approval and to be liked by others-- as BK explained. I don't even necessarily disagree with a ban, but the idea it could be permanent rather than temporary until BK gets better, seems excessive, even callous.
I guess it fundamentally boil down to whether you see BaconKing as a victim or as an overt actor in all this. I think it quite clear that he is a victim, and should not be subjected to some kind of punitive action.
Two points here:
1. Be careful not to confuse being fatigued with being callous. This was exhausting, and we've already researched/discussed this incident
a lot. After a while of discussing something, it's really easy to come across as unemotional. That doesn't mean there isn't sympathy.
2. Be careful not to confuse being clinical with being callous, either. All of us really like Bacon King, and recognize that mental illness affects decision-making. However, there is a grey area of culpability where someone is intellectually capable of understanding an action is wrong, and has consequences, but feels the impulse to do it again. Even in criminal law, those people are at least partially culpable. It's complicated and will require a dispassionate analysis, especially considering it involves someone who we're all sympathetic to. Dispassionate doesn't mean unsympathetic, and we'll do our best to strike the balance between sympathy and responsibility.
Hope that seems reasonable?
Poll
