Mal ,'Serenity'
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
It seems fair (on the one hand) - and yet it is also a kind of invitation to shit storms.
It really is an invitation of that sort. Allow the person to e-mail the stompies, and if the stompies think he or she has a point, they can open the discussion here.
I like the HoYay TV thread idea.
As for people who keep trying to change our minds about what we debated to death and resurrection and back to death again, I'm afraid I'm on the "If you have no new evidence to present, the sentence stands" train.
Damn, I've gotten legalistic in my old age.
I vote 'Yes' on a Music thread, but like Hec I'm confused as to why it's controversial. For myself, I can't handle Natter. There's too much volume there, and I know there are discussions I'd like to be involved in there, but . . . By creating a Music thread no one is saying "Music should not be discussed in Natter," and no one is being forced to keep up with the Music thread. It's simply an ancillary discussion thread, which will probably not be one-tenth as active as Natter. IJS.
The issue with Smallville is that it's sort of its own subcommunity at this point with its own history. Aside from the show.
But...it does have a very large crossover with Due South so a HoYay thread might be a good idea.
Allow the person to e-mail the stompies, and if the stompies think he or she has a point, they can open the discussion here.
This seems fair, and more importantly lets us control the discussion rather than handing the reins to somebody deemed worthy of a warning in the first place.
But in the future I'm wondering if we want to allow people who are being disciplined to defend themselves in Bureaucracy or have their say. It seems fair (on the one hand) - and yet it is also a kind of invitation to shit storms. I really don't know.
It's tough. If it was any sort of real-world example, then such proceedings would be conducted under particular standards of conduct. If we're discussing suspension or banning of a poster on the grounds that they don't adhere to such standards, it's kind of a Catch 22.
I would vote yes, I think, to giving them the opportunity to defend themselves, have their say, confront their accusers, all the rest of it. It's fair and all that, and it makes the decision-making more transparent. And because the whole decision-making process hasn't actually been formalised, I would suggest that if they do basically piss all over the proceedings, it would likely make the end decision that much easier and faster to reach.
I don't care if Smallville and DueSouth are combined--though there is the point of Smallville continuing to have new eps, whereas DS does not. Just a thought.
I'm also kinda against thread proliferation, and I suspect I won't at all read a music thread...but I'd say go for it. Seems like a buffista-y thing, to me.
As for inviting folks over to discuss their warnings/suspensions . . . I'm as conflicted as Hec. I want to be fair, but there's fair and there's "Please join us for tea and shit-hurling." Not that m. wasn't fairly agreeable just now, but who's to say?
This is my informal tally, based on all posts about this today:
Yes -- 18 (Jim E-T, Betsy Hanes Perry, DavidS, Beverly, FayJay, justkim, Askye, Amchau, Katefate, Steph L., Lyra Jane, Nilly, Michele T., Sue, Laura, DXMachina, Sophia Brooks, Billytea) [EDIT: Meara and Knut make 20.]
No -- 4 (msbelle, ita, Kat, Burrell)
But I admit I was subjective about what was a vote -- e.g., I didn't count Jess as a no because she hasn't said that specifically, though she seems to lean that way.
Allow the person to e-mail the stompies, and if the stompies think he or she has a point, they can open the discussion here.
This seems fair, and more importantly lets us control the discussion rather than handing the reins to somebody deemed worthy of a warning in the first place.
Raising another issue here: in practical terms, how would we go about preventing a person from joining in a discussion about whether to suspend/ban them? Where would the discussion be conducted? Or are we talking about appealing a decision now?