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?

Honestly, I don't think we could prevent someone who *knew enough* about Buffista etiquette to come here to discuss the subject. That's the key. Most of the trouble we'll have will be with folks who drop in looking for a fight, not with longtime Buffistas. But say I *knew* that there was talk of me going on in Bureaucracy--I'd come and post my defense. And I would be pissed as hell if I was told that I was explicitly not allowed to defend myself publically, I had to go through the admins.

I'm less sanguine about a specific movie thread - that's the kind of thing I'd like to see stay in Natter.

There's no justification for creating a general interest thread for Music but not for Movies that I can see. As much as I hate the idea, if we are creating more general threads, there's no reason not to create Cooking or Eating or Painting or Rock Climbing or whatever threads.

Just for the record - really no porn in Natter. Porn is in the NC-17 threads almost exclusively - I think even moreso now that we have a 10 year old poster.

If we are discussing suspending someone in this thread I think they should be pointed here to defend themselves in the official warning.

I'd agree with that, fwiw. I do also feel that a person should get two warnings prior to being told they're suspended, with the second warning making it completely clear of what the consequences will be if behaviour isn't modified. (This is maybe a reflection of my approach to classroom behavioural control, but it seems to fairest to me.) It would be appropriate, in either of these warnings, to point the person over to Beaurocracy so that they could see what the nature of the problem was, if it hasn't sunk in yet - and that gives them a chance to say their bit in a slightly more official environment.

A place to post porny pictures of pretty pickguards!

(I vote yes to music)

no porn in Natter

Fair point, well made.

This is a distinction that bothers me. "You can mount your own defence if you realise you're under review and can find where the discussion is going on."

Yeah, I get that. But at the same time I'm not sure a "come over here and let's fight about it" message is any better. Especially early on, people bring their concerns here partly to avoid starting a big head-on confrontation I think, and to try to step aside for a moment and get some other perspectives. This discussion is open to anyone, so it's not like a backchannel discussion (which does bother me), but...huh. Not sure where I'm going with this, except that I'm not entirely down with the formalization of this discussion that an official "come defend yourself or accept the judgement of the thread" statement implies. Likewise, a thread devoted entirely to these discussions gives me a major wiggins.

Just for the record - really no porn in Natter. Porn is in the NC-17 threads almost exclusively - I think even moreso now that we have a 10 year old poster.

I stand corrected. But still--I think of Natter as the ballroom, where everyone hangs out. The threads are the drawing rooms and libraries off to the sides, where Buffy is on or people are writing Firefly postcards or porn. Why not add a little room where the music geeks can play CD's from the newest bands or obscure classics?

I'll stop advocating now, really. I just think it's a great idea.

Dropping in to vote Yes on a music thread

I don't read Natter. I can't keep up, and I feel badly about skipping because then I miss that someone's neighbor broke his neck or someone bought a house. The variety of topics is so large in Natter that if I start skipping because folks are talking about jazz bands, I'll miss something I would care about. I don't feel so bad about skipping discussions of particular authors in Literary.

edited to reduce repetition

No. No, no, no, no, no.

Know what? If one's behavior is so fucking obnoxious that they receive a warning from the most friggin polite human beings on the 'net, then they have an opportunity to clarify and apologize or stomp off in a hail of bullets AT THAT POINT.

Once you've been suspended? Fuck you. You have two months to think it over before having your say.

Banned? Fuck you with a rusty railing and no lube. At that point, you've proven yourself to be an asswipe with no regard for the community, so why should the community have regard for the asswipe?

If some piece of waste decks you in the mouth and takes your wallet, you would put out an ad in the paper inviting the shithead to your home to explain him/herself? Maybe make him/her a pot of tea?

Fuck that.

Yeah, I get that. But at the same time I'm not sure a "come over here and let's fight about it" message is any better. Especially early on, people bring their concerns here partly to avoid starting a big head-on confrontation I think, and to try to step aside for a moment and get some other perspectives.

I think the distinction lies in whether suspension is being discussed or not. If not, then that's one thing. If it is, then I don't think we can do so fairly without the person having the opportunity to mount a defence.

Note that suspension would not be an issue until after at least the first official warning, and presumably would wait on another offence as well.