All told, I think it's OK we're taking a bit to examine what happened here, because it's not something I want to do capriciously.

True, Victor.

The last thing I ever want to see is this place turn into TWoP.

TWOP

Oh dear lord. I have been having much the same feelings as connie, but so many people were just avoiding the thread, which is surely death for the whole board.

TwoP has a policy (or maybe just a habit, I'm not sure) of banning opposing viewpoints, which has never been an issue for us. Our community guidelines forbid rudeness, not dissent.

I don't think we will turn into TWoP, we are too self conscious about making someone feel uncomfortable or about banning someone.

However, when one user is making other users so uncomfortable that they avoid a thread and it impedes their enjoyment of the board, then we do have to take some kind of action.

We weren't tyrannts. We explained, over and over, as politely as possible, to Mieskie what the proper etiquette is for this board. The Buffistas are very liberal in what we allow, it doesn't take much to be polite. He chose to insult others, he chose to be rude, he chose not to be nice. All actions have consequences, including his.

There is something, though, that I'm not sure how to say, so, just gonna say it.

Some folks here ARE oversensitive to a fault. Intense discussion that makes me feel invigorated, may make others avoid a thread or make a quip that grates the fuck out of my nerves in order to spank or shut a discussion down. I've seen it.

Because people are, well, people, what I see as intense can be seen as tension by others. Things I think are funny rants can be seen as mean-spirited attacks by others.

If a group of ten people see a discussion as cruel arguments, and a group of ten people see a discussion as spirited debate, where do we find the balance?

Well, right here in Bureaucracy. I heard perhaps two voices defending Mieskie. If there'd been even a plurality, I doubt we would have taken action.

Yes, we do all have sensitivity thresholds, but I think so far we've dealt. Then again, I may be one of the oversensitive ones.

First off, I'd like to note that I am grooving to Afghan Whigs as I type this. This ain't about regret/it's when I tell the truth...

If a group of ten people see a discussion as cruel arguments, and a group of ten people see a discussion as spirited debate, where do we find the balance?

And yeah, you have a very valid point, and to tell the truth, it's one of the reasons I was inclined to let things slide for a bit. I just wanted to watch for a bit to see if it was a case of Mieskie having a bad day, or people overreacting, or what have you. Lord knows I've been an asshole enough in enough contexts to cut other people slack.

That being said, personal attacks have always been my barometer, and there was plenty of that going on, and it was clear after a bit there was a pattern.

I guess the bottom line is when it becomes utterly clear the situation isn't going to change, and is just going to poison the board, that's when action gets taken. Unfortunately, to do that fairly, it means putting up with it for a bit.

I fled from the FF thread so I can't really comment on the content of the offending posts. It did appear to me from the discussion here that every effort was made to be fair. I love spirited debate, but I have no tolerance for personal attacks or posts which only intend to upset. It will be a pleasure to go back to enjoying discussion on the content of Firefly and the campaign.

In the words of William the Bloody...

I prefer not to think of such dark, ugly business at all.

I think the bottom line is personal attacks. Opinions, strong feelings, porn--the tolerance for these will vary from poster to poster, but not attacking each other for these varied opinions is one of the baselines which makes this community special.