|Welcome to the Monastery|
I was going to stay out of this until I noticed the update you made to the node in question.
I sympathize with your frustration; unfairness and injustice are difficult to accept in any form. Also, I know you're not the only person this happens to.
However, I wonder if you're taking the most effective approach toward solving the problem. Updating the node in question with the Scarlet Monk list seems a little unfair to those who aren't doing this.
In some ways, you're raising the spectre of the HUAC. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Personality Voting Cult?"
I find this interesting in light of something you once posted in response to an idea of mine:
I'm not here for the XP. I'm here to get and give advice and be part of a community.
Do you really believe that folks like jcwren, zdog, ZZamboni, TStanley, and PsychoSpunk would do this? Also, I noticed that you edited tilly's name from the list. Interesting. It's possible to read that as implying that you trust him, but not anyone else you listed.
Is that what you were meaning to communicate? If not, is it possible that it would have been wise to wait awhile before posting list of the Usual Suspects?
I respect your knowledge and the help you offer this and the larger Perl community. I appreciate all you've done for anyone with an ear to listen. However, I'm a little startled that you would not provide the monks not doing this with the same courtesy that you expect. Would you treat your clients this way? How about your best friends? If not, then why treat those trying to be your peers?
I'm not concerned about finding my name on your list. I fully realize that I'm still proving myself to you. However, I am disappointed to see that you extend (and willingly broadcast) an apparent distrust to other members of our community, members I believe have fully demonstrated as strong a commitment to the Monastery and its ideals that you have.
If you want to solve this problem, once and for all, would it not be wiser to quietly collect data, correlate activities, and determine more specific suspicions rather than using the shotgun of suspicion toward every monk you don't trust?
I spoke with a couple of other monks about this privately and, with certain urging (and a clue), did a bit of research into some older threads. I found an interesting one containing this quote by Corion:
The people who ... do not actively and repeatedly contribute to Perlmonks are a part of us, just as Anonymous Coward and Trolls are a part of Slashdot.
It's a little out of context, but I think there's a point here, one that you either choose to ignore or that you repeatedly miss. A point I tried to make last October when I first started slouching about. There is more than one way to earn respect. You give so much to the community that you will get a certain amount of negative reaction, reaction from people like (forgive me for naming names) bravismore, mr_leisure, DiscoStu, and similar people. Is it fair? Is it right? No.
However, I ask the same of your choice to post the Scarlet Monk list. Sherlock Holmes is quoted as claiming that it is a capital mistake to theorize in the absence of data. It may be wise to consider taking a slow, methodical approach and to use more than a single data point when casting aspersions.
It's right to root out and prevent unfair and unjust behavior. As Dr. King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere."
However, I do think that by casting a wide net, you do a disservice to those monks who aren't doing this. I do not believe it will "catch" the offenders in this case. Please reconsider your tactics, if only to show respect for those monks who may be able to earn your trust, or at least your respect some day.
In reply to Re: Posting "Other Users..."