While there may be no external 'big brother' perhaps we have collectively become one ourselves. I find this whole incident mildly disturbing. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not going to rant or run on about it, just had to vent a little. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

(Moving from Firefly) Mike, though, that's sort of the definintion of community. There exist, in any community, understood rules of behaviour, and when those rules of behaviour are deviated from with malice aforethought, it is the responsibility of the community to handle that violation. Because it is a violation, of hospitality, of trust, of welcoming, of the community.

It isn't saying "this subject is verboten". This is not about content, it's about intent and presentation, and it's about respect.

And, once again, I want to say that despite that fact that "We know what bad behaviour is, and we know who 'we' are" might seem unfair to outsiders, it's a better policy than trying to exhaustively write down the rules. That way lies madness because someone will say, quite rightly, that "such-and-such a poster just used the word 'cocksucking' and you didn't ban them!" and it'll descend into the minutiae of rules, and into "you didn't ban them because they're one of the Popular Kids" namecalling.

A community is formed by people with stuff in common who interact together over time.

It might not be possible to codify what the rules and boundaries of the community are, to tell which members have more authority than others, it might not even be practically feasible to poll the community, but despite the apparently undemocratic nature of our "constitution", we make a lot of effort to treat people fairly and see both sides of the issue, give guidance and second chances.

What's the proof? This thread, and the posts in Firefly 2, and all the stuff that's built up around the issue.

John, for some reason, your post brought out my Damned Allergies.

Oh, one tiny point.

I remember thinking that I'd be a good candidate to do the warnings, banning, etc, because I didn't post in the Firefly thread.

It doesn't really matter, but I think it might be worth considering if it ever, god forbid, happens again.

If someone who has taken no part in the discussion can come along and say "I've been called here by the community, who tell me you're being a pain. I've read the posts and I agree. You are now warned" that might create a better impression.

Cindy, thank you.

Also, what John said. And what Susan said, about 'they're still part of my tribe'.

I'm not happy something like that (the suspending) had to happen, but pretty much like Anne put it, it seemed necessary in order to prevent a worse scenario.

I think it's good we're talking these things over (as is our way) after the fact. I think it's good people bring up 'extreme cases scenraios', like Allyson and Rebecca. The fact that we discussed these things before helped us, when what we hoped wouldn't happen, happened - we didn't need to decide 'how to respond' fast and without having enough of a chance to think about it - what we set out to do proved itself.

A technical question: couldn't the Stompy Feet post be under the 'admin' user name, like the one used when closing a thread, in order to avoid an opening for personal attacks against the stompy who posted? They're not acting personally, after all, and if the nature of the problem is 'personal' attacks and disrespect, why expose a Feeted-Buffista to it? [Edit: sort of x-post-y with John, which is not surpriseing considered I've just agreed with his former posts]

[Edit: Feeted-Buffista now looks to me like it should be a hobbit t /natter

Right now, only ita has access to the Admin ID. I will admit to having changed my profile address in the event I had to stomp somebody. OTOH, the e-mail message does go out from the Admin user name, although I did sign it.

While there may be no external 'big brother' perhaps we have collectively become one ourselves.

OK, I just have to object to be called part of a collective 'big brother'. As I recall, this term comes from the Orwell novel 1984.

From [link]

Published in 1949, this darkly cautionary and prescient vision of the near future was a warning against the dangers of a totalitarian government fueled by high technology. Orwell envisions a world devastated by nuclear war and poverty, where the West has fallen under the spell of a totalitarian socialist dictator, Big Brother. A political demagogue and religious cult leader all rolled into one, Big Brother's power and mystery are so immense that one may wonder if he even exists at all.

Big Brother's Ingsoc Party (English Socialism) has perfected the uses of high technology to monitor the lives of its populace, and to insure unswerving loyalty through surveillance, propaganda and brainwashing.

So at what point in the last few weeks did the surveillance, propaganda and brainwashing happen? Or did you perhaps overstate the case?

Having this thread open to the public, I think, makes a huge difference in how trouble gets handled. Anyone with a userid can voice an opinion, and as evidenced by this and our pre-Phoenix discussions on the matter, we don't shut up even after consensus has been reached.

I think playing the "how would we deal if something WORSE happened?" game is counter-effective, since we can't predict everything, and we're all in agreement that the etiquette guide should remain vague so that we can deal with problems as they come along, based on the community response rather than a checklist of offensive behaviors.

Rob, I don't think it's really necessary to argue about that.

Is my personal feeling. & other people's, I believe, as well.

Right now, only ita has access to the Admin ID.

I didn't know that. OK then. John's way doesn't require any changes (and hopefully won't be needed).

and we're all in agreement that the etiquette guide should remain vague so that we can deal with problems as they come along, based on the community response rather than a checklist of offensive behaviors.

Seeing as I completely agree with what you said, Jess, I think I was unclear - I didn't mean we should start listing offensive behaviors and the appropriate responses to them. I just think that it's good we're not 'afraid' to check the boundaries, to remind ourselves that there are difficult scenarios that call to tough decisions.