I think there was a phrase some time back, which said "Do not annoy the Buffistas, for you are an easy target for being slashed."

My old tag was "Do not meddle in the affairs of slashers, for you are cute and look good with other men."

Now, if mieskie Mark II hadn't registered to give a farewell taunting, I might be inclined to give him a second chance. Basically, he's already proven that he's inclined towards that sort of juvenile behavior. IOW, he grabbed his second chance before it was offered, and wasted it.

That said, what happens if someone gets suspended, but genuinely wants to reform their ways and rejoin the community? Is there anything that we as Buffistas could do as a community to help someone with (for example) poor social skills to learn how to join in fair, witty discourse?

Thoughts? Opinions?

(Please excuse me jumping in here.)

Perhaps if they came in and actually said 'I'd like to join your community but I've had problems in the past and I think they were my fault. Please be patient with me and let me know where I go wrong and what I should have done instead', then we can get to know them, show them that if we have a problem we'll discuss it here, and see how it goes.

I suspect that if they geninuely come in with that attitude, when the debate heats up a little they'll post a few mildly inappropriate things, someone will get upset, but they'll apologise and make amends as best they can and things won't get nearly as bad as they have with this case, because Buffistas will be understanding of people with problems who are trying to make themselves better.

That's two paragraphs which are basically one sentance each. Stopping now.

wrod.

In the case of M, he arrived hot on the heels of Joss's post and his first post was an open letter to Joss. This didn't get him off to the best start, and it wasn't helped by his style. I'm sorry things worked out this way, but I can understand why it did and I think it was avoidable if he'd wanted to fit in with the environment, rather than expect the environment to reshape itself to accomodate him.

I got the impression that he didn't arrive, hang out, get a feel for the atmosphere and want to engage with other people in the community, but rather that he jumped in without figuring out what the place was like. So I don't think he was trying to piss people off - and indeed I'd read "Piss you off later" as a joke rather than a threat. (Albeit a joke which demonstrated a lack of concern for whether he pissed people off.) And I think he had admirable enthusiasm for the subject of FF and that he made some interesting points. I just don't think he did take on board the fact that there genuinely is a sense of community outwith one given thread - so that slagging off Buffy fans for not liking Firefly just isn't on. Not all Buffistas like Firefly . We aren't "us" because we point at any given group of "them" as all bastards/stupid/whatever. We're "us" because of overlapping interests and passions, and because we share a sense of community and support one another. I don't think M quite twigged to this, or indeed that his manner was bothering people. Or that it mattered that he was bothering people. And I can understand that, because I don't think his behaviour would have been out of place in other online environments.

(The porn troubled me, but I don't think there's anything to be gained by me getting all essay-writing about vulgarity and how I distinguish between different kinds of risque language. YOffensivenessMV, and it isn't all that germaine to the overall question of M.)

As to future incidents - it's all about showing willing, isn't it? If someone causes an upset unintentionally, but they can see that they have hurt someone else's feelings/feel that they are being misinterpreted or whatever, then if the other people's feelings matter to them, they'll be willing to try to find a compromise and to adapt a little. Or at least to talk about it calmly and listen. If the other people's feelings don't matter to them, then they may just take it as an attack and blame the other people for taking things the wrong way. I think we deal with things as they arise. We can contain multitudes, so long as we can be courteous about differences of opinion and treat one another with respect.

I think M. was genuinely confused as to what the difference was between things he'd said and things that other people had said (by which I don't just mean myself), and this troubles me. Am I right in thinking that he'd had only one Stompy Foot warning prior to being suspended? Because I think that the suspension probably came as a real shock. FWIW, my vote would be to give two warnings pre-suspension (apologies if this is what occurred), with the second warning making it clear that there is a problem, and that the ball's in his court to sort it out, and that if he doesn't then s/he's facing suspension.

(I know he was pointed at the FAQ, though.)

It seems like the music thread proposals keep coming up. I vote pro.

Is anyone tallying the music votes? The first flurry were no.

Fayjay, he had one warning and then suspension. He did know how that worked, and he did taunt the Stompies to smack him again. So I'd not think it could come as a real shock.

I don't have a real count, but general impression says I've seen votes go both ways, about 50/50. Which doesn't really help.

Fair enough, ita. Not my call, and it was going to have to be done sooner or later anyway.

Currently, the no's outvote the yes's 3:1 on the music thread issue.

I vote no on the music thread and encourage people to visit Hayden's music thread.

ita - Wasn't m was warned twice - once in the Firefly thread, and then once via email?

I think we should go with the "this name is too close to a user name that has been suspended/banned, please chose another" route.

I agree. I realize action has already been taken, but I wanted to voice support for it.

connie - your viewpoint reminds us to continue to be careful and fair. It also really provided the inspiration for a graceful solution. I'm glad you voiced it, even though I am less willing to give him another shot. Seriously, if I was innocent newbie number 600, who didn't know what had gone down with m, and was choosing a similar name, I'd want to be told, because I wouldn't want to start out wrong, with anyone mistaking me for m.

Of course that may mean he will get creative and try something entirely different. And we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

If he registers as SweetnessAndLight and then is the most Buffista-y of all Buffistas in the world, I don't care if the man behind the SweetnessAndLight curtain is the same poster as the man behind the m curtain. If SweetnessAndLight has learned to show the consideration for the community that he failed to show as m, then the purpose of the suspension has been served. (Of course the argument could be made that if he's learned consideration, he'll accept the suspension gracefully, but that's beside the point.) He might get a happy out of fooling us, but that's okay, as long as he doesn't harsh our collective mellow. If SweetnessAndLight posts in the same manner as m (I'm a big believer in 'The truth will out'), then eventually, his true colors will show, and same steps will be taken. His lack of consideration for the community was the problem. He wasn't some sort of arbitrary target.

I think M. was genuinely confused as to what the difference was between things he'd said and things that other people had said (by which I don't just mean myself), and this troubles me.

I'm feeling like the jaded one in the company of fair and kind people. I didn't get the vibe that he was genuinely confused. Well, to clarify, I agree with Fay, in that I don't think he thought his initial comment would be found objectionable. There is where we part company, because I think his behavior, once he heard the objections to the comment, was beyond the pale. He was tossing blame at Fay, wolfram, drinking vodka, and unnamed 'long time posters' and then tried to equate the offensive statement with the innocuous "Dawn is a hottie" type of posts. If I had seen sincere remorse, I would cut him some more slack. What (to me) happened is that people did try to explain the difference (before the warning came) and he argued with their explanations, and did not allow them to clear up his confusion. His offensive post was number 2383. In 2384, Betsy explained she found it objectionable because MT is an adolescent. That's pretty clear right there. In 2389, Consuela also explained his tone was hard to read. Fay chimed in later, as did Plei. Posters are going to offend sometimes. It's how they act afterwards that counts.

(For the context of the whole Dawn's-physique issue, see Firefly posts 2383 through 2425.)