>>I could not disagree with you more profoundly. The whole concept of a twit filter -- something I have never used, FWIW -- is that one member has irritated another so seriously that they don't want to deal with them at all. The irritant (the twitted) has no right to demand a hearing or another chance. We are all here "at will" and no member is obligated to put up with the unwanted words of another. If such a process were put in effect it would guarantee the loss of some members.
>>
>>This is an extreme example but it's like requiring a woman who was raped to sit down and talk it over with her rapist.
>
>There is no way you can be sure that the assumption that one member has irritated another so seriously is correct in every case.
>
>About your example:
>
>Suppose Tracy accused me of having raped her verbally, I'd certainly try to talk it over, with her. With who else!

A restraining order can be placed against a citizen. That citizen may not understand why - regardless of having it explained. The restraining order is much like a twit filter. Except of course, that there really is no real physical protection imparted by a restraining order. The twit filter gives me the freedom to decide who is a twit and the power to act on it.

You're hoping everyone is reasonable, don't forget that is all to often NOT the case.

>
>Suppose Naomi only thinks I have insulted her, applies a twit-filter and does not let me know why. How on earth could I then know and try to apologize or whatever!

Perhaps by that point your apology would be unwanted, unsolicited and possibly even unbelievable too?