I did notice someone at the Firefly site get a little confused by Amber B, which made me smile.

So Marni Noxon couldn't post under her real name?

I just read through the whole thing here in bureacracy and I think there is little more to say. To sum up, I think the conclusions reached were to:
1. Suspend the particular poster for 2 months
2. add something somewhere to keep posters from using names that sound too much like ME names
3. Register the ME names premptively and have them available should any of them want to post.

In addition, I think there was a consensus that a little something should be added to the FAQ on etiquette, perhaps the bit by Denise that Hec quoted

Please have respect for our there-when-you-got-there mores. If you offend them without having intended to, we will tell you, politely, as we do and did; then, your path is (I feel) to absolutely take a polite, apologetic tone. If you feel you were warned too hastily, or within a double standard, you absolutely may argue with us; but your basic tone *must* be a polite one. This is our sandbox. You are the newbie. Argue; but you must be brilliant to make us change our minds about something we've already had sixty thousand posts in the Bureaucracy thread about; but, then again, it is possible. Be polite and brilliant. Certainly. Surprise us.

And also it seems this should be somewhere:

And Kristen's point is also valuable. His lack of responsiveness to being told he was offensive is telling. It's a good Red Flag for all of us to keep in mind when we're looking at these situations.

OK-- DX and I cross-posted the Marni Noxon joke! I guess we are both easily amused.

Hee, Sophia, and neither of us spelled her name correctly. Just so we're clear, it's Marni Nixon. (I just IMDBed her.)

Shit-- before I knew of Marti I always could spell Marni's name right!

before I knew of Marti I always could spell Marni's name right!

That's Marti for ya. Always messin' with yo haid.

Just chiming in with my appreciation of the thoughtfulness and time taken in crafting a response/refining community standards. As we all know, Buffistas rocketh.

Thanks.

This bit Sophia quoted and attributed to Denise:

Please have respect for our there-when-you-got-there mores. If you offend them without having intended to, we will tell you, politely, as we do and did; then, your path is (I feel) to absolutely take a polite, apologetic tone. If you feel you were warned too hastily, or within a double standard, you absolutely may argue with us; but your basic tone *must* be a polite one. This is our sandbox. You are the newbie. Argue; but you must be brilliant to make us change our minds about something we've already had sixty thousand posts in the Bureaucracy thread about; but, then again, it is possible. Be polite and brilliant. Certainly. Surprise us.

is actually Rebecca Lizard.

Thanks Beverly. Need more coffee-- can't attribute, can't spell Marni Nixon...

Hey, all. Warm affirmations of righteousness from somebody who's still in the middle of catchup. We're doing well with the reasonableness, and more to the point, with the "Hey, other Buffistas, do you agree?"-ness of it all. So, monkey-grooming gestures all around.

Personally I'm more than a little weird on the notion that a ten year old is reading our boards, but then, I'm a little weird on the 14- and 16- year old readers. I resolve this cognitive dissonance by becoming blind any time Holli, RL, et al. mention their real ages. (Teenagers are sort of borderline, and can probably be judged "mature" individually, but I don't think many would say that a ten year old is mature.) I do secretly fret about it. Don't think I don't.

The Constitutional argument about the managing of just this kind of situation went on and on and on ...

Heh. I do wonder sometimes, though, about the process. I can only think of a very few times when groups of our own, self-identified, time-length-irrelevant Buffistas have offended each other, and so far, correct me if I'm wrong Stompy Feet, so far all of those intra-Buffista disputes have been resolved by personal (on-board or email) warning, rather than by official warning. Which basically works, or has seemed to work so far.

I hope this means that we are all so very averse to rancorous conflict that we collectively overreact on the side of nice. But it also means I worry, sometimes, about how we would all deal if we had to warn or suspend actual community members.

At the very least, we'd burn bandwidth angsting over it, which I guess would be a good, if painful, sign.

As skippy as I have been of late I couldn't skip a single message in this thread over the last couple days. The way issues are discussed in Buffista Bureaucracy is a beautiful thing to behold. Thank you.