I think it’s harsh only if mishandled. In order to be respectful to members who aren’t here simply to advertise, sell or promote something, I think keeping the forums clean of “noise” is necessary. If those members are interested in learning more about a product or service, I suggest Google 
And so everyone is clear on this process, I NEVER delete a post without first thoroughly researching its history, its poster and its relevance to Litmocracy. If there is even a shadow of a doubt that the post is genuine (i.e. that it might benefit members or the poster in other ways than simply spamming the community with information overload that can be accessed at will elsewhere), I leave it be.
Being a democracy doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep our home clean and safe. But again, as Dave said, I’m totally open to reopen the vote on the issue. I took the lack of replies on the first vote to mean that members either didn’t care, didn’t want to get involved, or agreed. Either way, in French, we have a saying which goes “qui ne dit mot conscent”, which basically means that if you are given an option to speak up and choose not to, you are considered to be in favor.
As always julianyway, thanks for reading and taking part We need more members to get involved in important decisions like these.
- Star
EDIT: Sorry, got confused in my threads. I now realize this isn’t about spammers but banning members. I didn’t erase my post because in the end, I think the same principles apply (i.e. about keeping our home safe and clean), so if the vote WAS reopen, I would side with Dave. Banning a member is however a more serious action than deleting spam, so personally I would prolly confer with others before banning anyone to make sure that my judgment isn’t impaired or that I’m being unreasonable with the action, unless the member is blatantly insulting, degrading, or engaging in clear “you should be banned for this” actions.
- Star
