Bwah!
On Buffistahood: I don't consider myself one. But this isn't a commentary on the community or individuals at all. I discovered many on TT. Posted here and there on WX. More here ('cause it is so pretty and bright and smart and I have more time!) I'm simply not invested here as elsewhere, but that's my choice for the moment. It is just about how necessary I feel to the Busffista community. OK, that sounds wrong and depreciating to someone.
Dudes, I read with awe and wonder how well people here take care of each other and interact, online and in meatspace. I'm just more antisocial, perhaps.
Try again: I went to a quaker college, I was raised a quaker. Round about the time I started college, I stopped calling myself a quaker for various internal reasons. I still am, in some ways, as viewed by the outside world. But parts of me disallow that whole label, but not in a bad way.
Did this mean I lost respect for that community? No. Did this mean I stopped admiring much of what they stand for? Nope. I am all pro-quakery.
It is a personal label, to some degree. Embraced by a community, shaped by shared values of that community, but still just a label. If you feel called to quakerhood (or buffistahood) by all means, call yourself one. If you can't call yourself one, you can still share much of the core of the -hood and enjoy the comraderie. Core is what counts. If you share it, you'll find this a likely comfortable fit, no matter what you call yourself, how long you've been posting, what your shorthand is.
I'm always going to find solace in the occasional foray back into the Society of Friends. I'm not one, and I may never be one, but it is all amicable.
And if that wasn't random...
We were not talking in secret, and if he came here it may or may not have been helpful. We would have discussed the situation with him.
However, I agree that it is just as well he didn't take the initiative to find the Bureaucracy thread on his own. I don't usually fall over myself trying to be helpful and give directions to someone who is trying to piss me off.
I think it would have been a far preferable solution, John. Would've completely removed any jitters I had about the situation. But, again, most of us are unaware of any backchannel Admin/Mieskie stuff that went on. For all we know there may have been a polite letter or two sent to him with his response being to go jump in a lake. I think that either civil and direct warnings should be given and the results observed, or a 'hash it out' should be had with an offender as civilly as possible before a banishment is undertaken. At least something official here would give an offender a good chance to see that he (or she) is really in official trouble and give them a good chance to defend or clarify their actions, and if after a reasonably short time a conciliatory solution can't be reached then I'm all for banning a complete jerk. I definitely don't feel that a topic specific thread is the right place to have one of those discussions. There are too many distractions and too much noise for the message to get through clearly. All it would take is for one if the mods/admins to say "Hey UserX, let's take this over to Beureaucracy. We need to talk." or something like that. I think it would taste better that way, anyway...
Edited to put even more words in! And to apologise for implying any kind of Admin-Mieskie slashy thing... lol...
At least something official here would give an offender a good chance to see that he (or she) is really in official trouble
I understand your point, but I want to make sure you didn't miss that he
did
know he was in official trouble. I posted an official warning to him, and he referred to it afterwards. I also linked, in said post, to our policy regarding warnings and suspension. He knew.
Which reminds me -- admins? You do have access to the admin login -- it has the same password as the e-mail.
Sorry Ita... My ignorance is showing again, isn't it... :)
At least something official here would give an offender a good chance to see that he (or she) is really in official trouble and give them a good chance to defend or clarify their actions, and if after a reasonably short time a conciliatory solution can't be reached then I'm all for banning a complete jerk.
When new users sign up, don't they -- in theory -- see the "Play Nice" information? Which details warning ---> 2-month suspension ---> banning.
Granted, you can't FORCE a new user to read that, but if it's been presented to him/her and he/she (1) didn't read it or (2) read it and ignored it, that's his/her own fault.
And mieskie DID get a public, clearly worded warning in the FF thread. The next step after that was a 2-month suspension, which is what happened next. Every step was followed properly.
t edit
x-posty with ita.
Are you saying you tried to log in and couldn't, or that you don't know the e-mail password? Because we should all be checking it regularly.
I don't know the e-mail password. I think I missed a memo somewhere.
