As the founder and maintainer of this community, I opted to take a back seat and allow discussion to develop on its own. I decided that my role to the community would be to only intervene in cases where a member is posting intolerable material, such as racist or sexist commentary. On the first instance I identified an unacceptable racially biased post, I warned the member immediately about how such behavior is not permitted in this community. However, other members and observers has made it clear to me that this is not enough. As is very obvious, a situation developed where one community member's volitile approach to expressing dissent stifled the discourse of all those wishing to engage in more sophisticated dialogue. I permitted this situation to exist because I did not want to interfere with various forms of dissent and marginal opinions that might be useful toward diversifying the community. This overly extended toleration has damaged the community. While this one member may have been able to express dissent in a way that encouraged interaction, that individual chose a tone that led to the disengagement of many members. In an attempt to repair the state of dialogue within the community, I had removed the member in question from the community list. That individual, choosing not to accept my decision as maintainer, rejoined and continued to post volatile material. That member has since been banned from European_Union.
I would like to revive the damaged interaction in this community. To do this, I encourage all members to begin posting again developments of interest, issues of opinion (dissent always permitted), and any information or commentary that might bring this community back to a stable state of normalcy.
My encouragement, to demonstrate that prior volatile tirades can be presented in a nonaggressive manner, is to take issues posted by the since banned member and confront them in your own way in new posts to the journal. For instance, what are your attitudes toward the extensive funding behind the Yes Campaign for the European Constitution? Do you feel that this interferes with democracy? Or is it simply a means to inform the public on the government's perspective of its own actions? (Believe me, as an American, I can be very suspicious about how governments use bent propoganda to legitimize its agenda) These are just suggestions.
Again, I strongly encourage everyone to take part in reviving the damaged momentum of dialogue in this community. It would be wonderful to see multiple people speaking up instead of just one person.