Hi @David Dreezer As per blocking, would still like to have this.
Psychoanalysis aside, in the real world, people get banned - be it booted out of school, fired from a job, dumped in a relationship, etc., due to chronic refusal to respect the rules. I don't think a perfect idealized state of decentralization could work - even if it existed. There is a limit - questions are, "Where is the line?" and "Who draws it?"
I agree - and I hope the Team has a little bit of time to discuss this internally, despite all the other things vying for their attention.
NEO, the very network our project is built upon, isn't decentralised yet. They have the intention to become increasingly decentralised, but they decided that in their earlier phases, elements of centralisation would be necessary, in part to protect the network.
To emphasise your point @Colleen Ryer, I don't know of a single aspect of human society that can function without having recourse to excluding destructive elements. If we plan to build a utopia that ignores what we know about humanity here, we'll fail.
Law and order are necessary for prosperity. The Content Economy can't thrive if it remains a lawless frontier. People were excited about the gold rush in California in the 1800s, and some people moved out there at great risk because of the lure of great rewards. Little did they know that California would become the world's 5th largest economy, but only because the old lawless days of the wild west were replaced with stability that allowed for a broader society to develop and prosper.
I can only speak for myself: what I admire in Narrative's team is a vision that respects the ideals of decentralisation - within reason. Absolutist versions of this idealism that fly in the face of the basic viability of the network are of huge concern to me, and should be to anyone else committing time and energy to Narrative.
If we can't muster the pragmatism to ban a person who is actively attacking the core functions of Narrative, do we even deserve to survive?