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.

Word, scrappy. Spirited debate is one thing, and Allyson's right, there were some voices raised during some of the arguments about rape in the Buffy threads. That said, most of the posters still made an effort to disengage their investment in the topic from anger at the people they were arguing with.

There are posters here whom I don't always agree with, because sometimes they say things I find personally offensive. However I don't generally get the sense they mean to offend me personally, and if called upon it they would apologize.

m. was a problem not because he said offensive things, but because he intended to offend. There are online forums where such behavior is not only appropriate, but expected: the Phoenix Board is not one of them.

On a personal level, I fail to see why anyone would want to post here, if they thought we were stupid and hypersensitive. What's the attraction? Sigh.

Cindy: thanks for the Nilly. Laid out like that, it's clear m. was given many opportunities to modify his behavior, and that he consistently offended the spirit of the board. I'm perfectly content with the stomping.

And yes, please do leave his final post in place. We're not in the habit of censoring and I'd rather we not start if avoidable.

Leave the last post. We shouldn't be afraid of controversy, we should only be proud of our reaction to it.

there were some voices raised during some of the arguments about rape in the Buffy threads. That said, most of the posters still made an effort to disengage their investment in the topic from anger at the people they were arguing with.

Yes, and more importantly, people apologized when they realized or had it pointed out to them that they had offended someone.

I just completely agree with Allyson, again. Which is handy, because she's said it all so well already!

I'll just add that on the mailing list I co-mod for a bunch of Usenet oldtimers, one of our posters went batshit unexpectedly. As another of the co-mods put it, "We're just hoping that another rock falls on his head and snaps him out of it." Political arguments turned into personal attacks, and even posts on neutral subjects returned again and again to his sense of aggrievedness.

He was eventually asked to take a leave from the list, but if you ask me, it was about a month and a half after he should have been asked. (In fact, one of the other co-mods said after the first outbreak "oh, it's over now, nothing more to worry about." When I saw said co-mod shortly after the guy got suspended, I did the Dance of Smug Rightness and sang a little song.) After he left, you could practically hear the exhale of relief on the lists, and people who hadn't posted in weeks started posting again. Birds sang. The sun shone. And it all could have happened right after the first or second time he started calling other posters "fucking idiots" rather than the fourth or fifth time if the other co-mods hadn't been overly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm tired and I doubt I'm expressing myself as coherently as I could, but the point I'm trying to make is this -- being too nice to disruptive posters is just as damaging as being too mean to them. I think the tack that has been taken with mieskie is the right one, and I don't feel even the slightest qualm about it.

I suppose I should have posted this here rather than the FF thread. I'm glad mieskie was banned. I'm sorry it couldn't have worked out better, but I am one of the people who left the thread because of him. My time to be online is not something I wish to spend being insulted repeately.

I think it was handled well, and I am very glad he was banned.

First off, I'd like to note that I am grooving to Afghan Whigs as I type this.

Cincinnati band, BTW. Go Whigs!

Only one note: I think that the Stompy Feet are the ones who have to deal with trolls, or the cluelessly rude. As was noted above, there is not time enough and world enough for a consensus to develop among the Buffisita community - especially if two or three Mieskies show up at the same time. If someone violates the rules, is warned , violates them again and refuses to apologize - I think the Stompy Feet should stomp.

If they do wrong, I think the community will let them know, and the person can be unsuspended. You could have a formal process. For example if 10% registered Buffistas rounded down to the nearest whole Buffista (i.e. 60 Buffistas at time I press send on this post) protest, then it goes to a formal vote of the community. Or you could leave it informal. If a poster is suspended and there is a lot of outcry you take a vote or seek a consensus. At moment only one person has expressed what I take as actual opposition to the suspension; and I could be reading her wrong; it might just be a high discomfort level, rather than actual disagreement.

Incidentally, I don't have a problem with some people having more influence than others. Some people contribute more to the community than others. My only role on this board has been to make posts that I think some find interesting. There are others who have put in tons of time, pr contributed money. People will respect their opinions more than mine - and I don't see anything wrong with that. They have more at stake than I do, stand to lose more if they are wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I love this board; if it were destroyed it would be devastating to me. But ita put a year of hard work into specing, designing and coding it. As did others; as did people who put in time in other ways; as did those who contributed money. If something happens to the board, they lose everything I do plus the time or money they put into it. So, on board matters ita's opinion and others in the core group should be respected more than mine.

That sounds like a WAY heavyweight process to me. I'm much happier with what just happened.