Thanks đź‘Ť It certainly is harder to maintain a black list, because it has to be fair. A white list, on the other hand, is inherently easier to maintain because it goes on positive recommendations. Although I am not insinuating that the reporter is not telling the truth, I am questioning the validity of barring someone on the strength of one incident alone. Perhaps names should only be added to the list if they have been reported by more than one person... or perhaps have a Grey List as well - a weekly updated provisional black list with names of suspected offenders, and if the name doesn't come up again after a week or so, the name is removed?
I think the list would be far more credible if it were restricted to known trouble-makers rather than pulling up individuals for a single indiscretion, esp. when we don't know the circumstances fully. I removed the guy's name from the list, by the way...
That's certainly a credible idea, I like the fact of a temporary black list or grey list as you put it. I could rectify the black list to the most persistent offenders only that is known to cause trouble by more than one member. As they say, two heads are better than one and gives the nomination a bit more credibility.
I probably will overview the list and give some sort of week expiry for the names which seems to do a 'one off' event of poor behaviour and doesn't seem to do again for a while after. Only the most persisent would stay on and would probably be the most credible way of sorting this list.