'Underneath'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
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.
Ita, I don't.
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.
Expect mail.
Gracias. I have to go edit a review of Phish.