[new members] can past history be looked at

There is apparently a proposal at a blog group [not Bloghounds] which runs roughly along these lines:

That the criterion by which new blogs are decided for membership should in no way take into account the blogger himself, his past history or his "private life" nor if it is being used for "recruitment" purposes.

In other words, members must decide on the blog, excluding what they already know of this blogger or what subsequently comes out.

Thus, if he is a known troll or a stalker or has a history of trouble-making, this must not be taken into account in deciding if the blog itself is fit for membership.

Put another way, the blog itself becomes a member, rather than the blogger.

I think that is the case in a nutshell - correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, at Bloghounds, we simply don't yet have a formulated policy but there is an unwritten principle that it is the blogger who applies, nominating one of his/her blogs as his/her main vehicle. We do look at history and the membership decides on that basis, after first looking at the quality of the blog.

An aside about my blogrolls

I've just added The Far Queue, Damon Lord, Letters from a Tory and Angus Dei to my personal roll. This is my N2 roll, my main one being the Bloghounds roll. They'll be transferred there pending membership approval. My blogrolls in general are going to be revamped soon.

Some people have been wondering why they were there but now aren't. The reasons are two - either they don't link to me or they do link to a person [who shall remain nameless] whom I refuse to link to. You can call that petty but I call it my right on my blog.