this kind of communication is something the entire community could benefit from.

At the risk of coming over all kumbaya, can I just say A-men.

No need to flog the 'print is so easily misinterpreted' dead horse, but a general consensus would be nice around "look, there are no serial killers here that we know of, so if something climbs your tree? Assume it isn't about your worth as a person".

Actually, that consensus exists, for the most part. So, I guess the converse nice thing would be "no serial killers here, so if someone goes batshit? Assume it's a bad day and not about your worth as a person."

(So not about your reaction ita. I saw no self-worth guessing there, of course.)

I forgot to say that we are solely responsible, except in the case of Miracleman, who is controled by either the ferrets, remote controlled zombie robots, and sometimes both.

Miracleman controls the RCZR, but the ferrets control all. Just ask them.

Miracleman controls the RCZR, but the ferrets control all. Just ask them.

"O ferrets, is it true that you control all?"
"Shush, biped. We're trying to find out more about this 15 ft prairie dog."

The ferrets do not (yet) control the raisins/sultanas. They'd like to. Actually, raisin/sultana control is their mission statement. But let's end this hyperbole. It makes them shed.

Ahh, ferrets and prairie dogs and friction.

It doesn't quite seem fair to hold a forum on ita's debating technique when Sean's the one who had the outburst. Sean has now apologized (more than once, and sincerely) for that, so maybe that portion of today's entertainment can be closed.

As for myself, I've come to value that ita will shoot down an unsupported generalization or broad inferences of cause and effect with unerring accuracy. I had to stop my joyful jumping to conclusions and make my case more thoughtfully, and marshall my evidence. Really and truly, I have frequently thought about how arguing with ita has changed the way I think.

ita, since you seem curious about it, I will note though that the extreme negative cartoon image inherent in your approach looks like Spock, cocking his eyebrow, sticking his finger into the open wound of some redshirt and muttering "Curious" as the security ensign writhes on the ground. Sort of dispassionate and relentless, more curious about the wound than the person behind it.

note I said "extreme" cartoon image. I'm painting it broad for effect and to get it across. Personally, that's not how I see her and could offer an equally positive cartoon image of gracious diplomacy.

To use a krav example, I think ita does us the honor of treating each of us as worthy debaters/fighters. I don't think ita breaches any boundaries, but there could be instances where she recognizes the other person's limits. Some debates might better be treated as exercises with a limited series of passes, instead of full bouts to submission.

As for myself, ita, I prefer no holds barred discussion and we can go until one of us taps out.

It doesn't quite seem fair to hold a forum on ita's debating technique when Sean's the one who had the outburst. Sean has now apologized (more than once, and sincerely) for that, so maybe that portion of today's entertainment can be closed.

Okay, so then why did you, Hec? I'm not poking you, friend. I know your intentions are true. I'm asking most seriously, because I completely agree with your paragraph which I've quoted above, but then your subsequent paragraphs offer up material which would best fit in said not quite fair forum (which for the love of all that's holy, we'd better never have).

Okay, so then why did you, Hec?

I read it as speaking up for ita, as the last few posts seem to have gone in the "let's have ita change the way she relates to the board" vein. I over simplify of course. I read it as, after the first paragraph, the rest had to do with ita, and not a piling on of Sean.

Hmm, posting in Bureaucracy. I hit "post message" with butterflies in my stomach.

I didn't read it as a Sean piling, either. That's not why I posted. The rest of the post just seemed to contradict the introduction, that's all. And none of this conversation seems to live up to the method people seemingly agree is best--namely, if/when someone posts something that itches, call them on that post, specifically, in a timely fashion. The general criticisms are unfair, and the general praise (which is a good thing in general), is in response to the general criticisms, and I'm just getting dizzy.

I'm with you on the butterflies Nora, and think I need to go do something else.

Someone please help me out here. I realize I'm mostly just a lurker, but I read some of the threads here pretty religiously, including Natter, and yet I still can't figure this place out.

SeanK posts the internet equivalent of screaming obscenities in a crowded room, and everyone looks away and talks about the weather, then congratulates themselves on "look how we didn't make a big kerfuffle over it."

Allyson's post is civil in tone, but controversial and pointed in content, and everyone leaps on her.

I need help with the rules here. Is one behavior worse than the other, or is it just some people need the help of the community while others are assumed to be able to defend themselves? Or perhaps it's not about the victims? Is it that some people can get away with stuff that others can't? Normally I wouldn't even have noticed, I'd just see drama and go away 'til it was over. But these two incidents happened right on top of each other, and the difference in the community reaction was almost startling. What's the deal?

Allyson's post is civil in tone, but controversial and pointed in content, and everyone leaps on her.

a) I have a very hard time reading Allyson's tone as civil. I know she says that it's intended to be, and I know that many people do read it that way. I have difficulties with it, and I generally don't respond to things she says because I don't trust myself to read them correctly.

b) The thing was *over*. 90% of the reasons kerfuffles go on forever here is that someone stirs the pot just when everything was settling down. bon bon did it, Allyson did it, and Bureaucracy seems dedicated to it.

c) I hardly saw everyone leaping on Allyson. When bon bon brought up the issue in Natter, many more people in total said that they found Sean's behavior unacceptable, and of course, when Sean returned, he felt piled-on, which was the thing we'd been trying to avoid.

d) I guess that yes, I do cut Sean more slack in this istance because his post obviously came out of frustration and a crappy day. No, he shouldn't have done it. Yes, there are obviously many issues at play which were probably not handled in the best way. But it reads differently to me than Allyson's post, which was obviously something she considered and deliberately posted. She said it was important to her, which I totally respect, but that then leaves other people free to respond to it as they choose.