deny him on the basis of crimes against humanity - same for Jerry Brukeheimer (or however you spell it).

also? I know big things and important things and many different things are being discussed and talked through, but the volume in this thread has become a bit much. In NO WAY am I suggesting people hold in their thoughts, can we just try not to post with me too and it's been said before.

That said:

1) we have a warning, suspension & banning policy. We agreed to it beforethis board was opened. We debated it slightly as we just went through excercising it - let's leave it be.

2) letting people know that this thread is where discussions of not nice behaviour get discussed - no new thoughts - Maybe someone can Nilly the bigger points and do a summary..

3) Music&Movies - there's a counter for votes, Nilly posted a link to the beginning of the discussion in Press, I'm pretty sure the pros and cons as seen by the various sides have all been posted.

4) I'm still the nicest.

I would actually vote yes for a music thread and no to a movie thread. Music seems to be sometimes less accessible to me, personally. I'm not a very musically inclined person (one of those morons who "know what I like") and I can see being frustrated if you want to discuss something obscure in Natter. Movies seem more accessible. Sure, I can't recall the Tolkien I have read, but at least I can follow the discussion. I guess, what I'm saying, is that music can be (though isn't always) a more technical discussion in nature. I may never get to hear Jon's band live (or is it John? or ... the one that did Auld Lang Syne) but I'll probably have at least the opportunity to see most of the movies in the theater, even the more obscure/indie ones. Of course, having said that, I was all excited to hear about the band doing Auld Lang Syne and getting the attention it got and did my own little Yay Buffista! dance.

I think even moreso now that we have a 10 year old poster.

I know we know there's a 10 year old poster, but two things: we always might have had a 10 year old poster, or younger; apparently we don't have a 10 year old reader. I am against modifying our behaviour because of this announcement.

And I have nothing new to say on any of the other topics.

I'm having wild visions of Aaron Sorkin coming here, as he did on TWOP, and acting like a jerk, and getting himself suspended. Well, anyway, what I saw of his 'tude on TWOP was worth a warning, among the Buffistas. And we don't have much to say about his show anyway, so it's moot. But like I said, wild (hilarious) visions.

I don't have an outright objection to the proliferation of non-ME topic threads; although I know we can certainly expand to fill them. (I would sort of advocate an immediate shrinkage and clarification, followed by a reasonable expansion by general rather than specific topic.) I have one chief concern: bandwidth. I know we've come close to our limit once or twice; will this be an issue? Will we need to pay extra to make sure we don't basically popular ourselves out of a server?

I would actually vote yes for a music thread and no to a movie thread. Music seems to be sometimes less accessible to me, personally. I'm not a very musically inclined person (one of those morons who "know what I like") and I can see being frustrated if you want to discuss something obscure in Natter. Movies seem more accessible.

That's basically my perspective. Also, it seems to me that the music discussions are more at risk of getting sidelined or lost in Natter, and I don't think that happens as much with movies.

Will we need to pay extra to make sure we don't basically popular ourselves out of a server?

It's a good point. It will probably hasten the point at which we have to buy more bandwidth, but I'm sure not by more than a few months.

Music but not movies would be OK by me; there seems more of a pro-music groundswell.

Music but not movies is okay, because the main movies, LotR, have been covered already.

I'm with Allyson on this - every post you make on this board is an opportunity to mount a defense, and especially so after you've received an official warning.

Yes, but would we rather such defence was happening on an administrative thread or a show or natter thread?

Allyson, as I read it, was saying 'no appeals'. Or maybe 'no lube'. I'm pretty comfortable with that. (Er, the former.)

The procedure Hec outlined sounds good to me. Discussion of actual suspension, IMO, should be conducted with the knowledge of the person in question. If they behave like a prat during such discussion, well, at least it's going to be a quick one.

The procedure Hec outlined sounds good to me. Discussion of actual suspension, IMO, should be conducted with the knowledge of the person in question. If they behave like a prat during such discussion, well, at least it's going to be a quick one.

And I agree with Billy agreeing with Hec.

The amazing and wonderful thing about the whole m. situation was that it was completely public. The concerns, objections, and hints posted by peers were in the Firefly thread. The official warning was in the thread. The rules are in the FAQ. This thread is open. Discussion about the situation occurred before, (during, I think) and after. At no time was m. barred from the discussion. True, he didn't think to explore bureaucracy (and an email message to the offender indicating that suspension is under consideration is a great idea), but it was all here.

Because I both violated the "ignore" standard with my remark about MARCIE, and then cheered on a couple of wonderful men for also not "ignoring" it didn't feel right to participate in the discussion of the banning, or the aftermath.

However, I admired the consideration given to the question. The *fairness* of the entire proceeding was remarkable, including an open discussion with dissenters.

It was, though ugly on the surface, a thing of beauty in its resolution. I really love this place. Even if I did just try to register as James Cameron.