I am also quite willing to drop this thing and accept that I possibly hold different opinions on this subject than many other people (believe me, I'm quite used to that). I think my most glaring miscommunications have been cleared up (i.e. big brother), though anyone who feels they must still take me to task should feel free to do so. Again, I hope I haven't offended, as that was never, nor will it ever be, my intent.

though anyone who feels they must still take me to task should feel free to do so. Again, I hope I haven't offended, as that was never, nor will it ever be, my intent.

Mike, I don't have a sense that anyone's got a gripe with you, and thanks for sharing your opinions.

Not a bit, Mike. Your intelligence and your concern are very clear. I hope you keep hanging out around these parts.

David, I always felt that Mieskie was one of those unfortunate people who could be quite articulate and even possibly eloquent when discussing sonething on an impersonal basis (i.e. a character assessment) while being almost completely inept at direct social interaction as 'themselves'. More of a sad case than a bully.

ITA with you, Mike, except that on the last point I'm not sure there's a distinction. He's a sad case, yes, but he clearly enjoys bullying people, or at least sees nothing wrong with it. In a community, that's a problem.

I'm not offended by anything you've said, Mike, and I'm glad you spoke up. For one thing, I think the point that this discussion was going on while some people were unaware of it is a good one. Some newbies might still be unclear on the procedure of m.'s removal, and that may create the picture of the Cool Kids-Backchannel discussion, which never happened. All the discussion was here, in plain sight, although separate from the site of the disturbance. Which, despite the confusion, is how it should be, IMO.

Well, Betsy, not really knowing what was and was not done (backchannel, etc), I can't really post a cogent response. Nor is it really my place to contradict the overwhelming opinion of the 'community'. I am quite willing to say that I made my initial (Firefly thread) post with a woeful lack of data (I HATE doing that!) and while in a situation where I carried more weight in the matter I personally would have perhaps attempted some direct intervantion with the offender, the reality is that the situation occurred (mostly when I was unable to directly take part in the specifically offending discussions) and has been resolved and my nattering about it seems to be doing nothing but ruffling the feathers of many people somewhat unnessesarily. To address your example directly, your 'party person' sounds almost exacly like my mother-in-law (Aside from the 'he' part. I have a, odd family, but not that odd). My wife and I and her two siblings and their families anre currently in the process of laying the goudwork for an intervention to try and save the woman from herself. Any situation of this type can be quite difficult, and perhaps my sensitivity level on the subject is a little high due to my present circumstances. I guess I just really don't like the idea of banishment in the abstract or in reality.

Excellent analogy Betsy. We are able to read posts from well known regulars and know the underlying tone of the posts. We have chided regular members about having a bad day when their posts are uncharacteristically bad moody. We don’t know the underlying intent of new members, but I feel the banned member made his intentions clear.

The flood of new posters are joining a party in progress with people comfortable and knowledgeable of the social environment. It is not the only social environment available on the World Wide Web. The overwhelming majority of new posters are going to have a good time playing here and I shout welcome to the party. (and welcome Mike P)

The system worked splendidly. It did make me somewhat uncomfortable, but the bottom line for me was that the presence of the offending poster caused me to unsubscribe to the FF thread and now I can go back. It’s all good.

and I'm one of those unfortunates who doesn't feel right skipping the majority of back posts and then submitting my own. If that disqualifies me from ever being a 'real' Buffista, then so be it.

I absolutely didn't mean to say that, & apologise if I sounded that way to you. I was referencing an older discussion about new-ish people feeling they weren't "real" Buffistas yet.

I really want to thank everyone for their thoughtful and thought-provoking responses to my admittedly knee-jerk Firefly thread post. The initial gut-wrenching feeling I had is slowly fading, and it is extremely refreshing to find a community of people who can agree or disagree in such a civil fashion. The demands of my daily life prevent me from participating to the extent of ever being one of the 'real' Buffistas, but it is quite pleasant to be able to spend what little time I do have available with such generally nifty people.

X-ish post with RL: Alrighty. Do I deserve a wrist-slap for my tone? :)

Mike, a 'real Buffista' is someone who contributes to the community where and how they can, and abides by the community standards we've developed. I'd say, according to that definition, you're certainly a Buffista, if you want to be.

I hate people to think that there's some sort of probationary period before you get to be a Buffista.

Mike, please don't think that you have to post a lot to be a "real" Buffista.

Personally I'm getting frustrated that the whole old school/new school "real" buffista thing is getting thrown around. I will say that back on Worldcrossing when Allyson (I believe it was Allyson) said she didn't feel like a Buffista I was shocked. I consider her to be a Buffista.

We don't have tests here, there's nothing beside your name that says after X number of posts you are Novice or Intermediate or however other boards rate it.

You obviously like the community and you want to stay and be apart of it as much as your time will allow, and that in my mind makes you a Buffista.

Well, that's crossposty.