I mainly agree with Father Steve. But I don't think ignoring RH will work, because in the long run adherence to that good advice cannot be expected.
Separately is wrong to attribute RH's behavior to a personality disorder or alcoholism or anything else which might make that behavior in some way forgiveable. Whatever the underlying disorder, if there is one, we should take it for granted that he is out to destroy this site. And he will not stop until he has succeeded. It is really that simply. All his chatter and protestations are huey and fill. Huey, in that he doesn't believe a speck in them, fill, because his objective is simply to load on the offensive drivel: as much and as frequently as he can.
It occured to me, reading the Father Steve's first post of advice for the victims of these attacks, that at least one reason RH uses so many aliases is for the for the *sake* of conducting his own discourse. But this is not just foolishness: if he is ignored, he has and is his own forum. That is, he *cannot* be ignored. I mean to suggest that these populations of his are not plain idiocy, but strategy. They are meant to circumvent the inevitable efforts to ignore the poster. And it is for this reason, among others, that I suggest that he actively seeks to destroy the board: his populations and the fora they occupy like militias are perfectly tailored to the defense Father Steve encourages us to employ.
This is not to say that these populations couldn't also be ignored. It is only to point out that there is method, here. The neurotic doesn't exist in RH who believes that he is some poor misunderstood soul -- that, like all his puppets, is a contrivance. And all of it is aimed at bringing down this board.
The answer, I'm afraid, is that the board will die. And it's a damn shame.
But there is another side to Father Steve's recommendations. The tactic he recommends, and the outcomes prophesied, are those of *unmoderated* boards. The answer, then, is simple. The board must be moderated, and unsavory characters such as RH must be banned.
In the history of AWAD, there have, I think, been only two individuals who would have been banned. I do not think, then, that having a moderator poses much of a threat of lack of openness. In fact, since so many good contributors have left the board, the appointment of a moderator and removal of RH would probably greatly enhance the openness of the board.
I believe that lack of moderation on this board has become irresponsible.
I don't think that Anu needs to be presented with lots of examples of abuse. They are plentiful. And this thread, which is gratifying to read, speaks loud and clear.
Insel
