Caught up. Sweet Jesus, I have to go get my haircut and I come back to 101 messages.

Knut--The only person I ENUFed on TT was someone who used annoying HTML in his posts. He does the samething on WX, but posts less so I don't miss the ENUF filter. However you can take someone on and off MARCIE/ENUF whenever you want, so if someone is grating your nerves for a bit you can ignore them until the situation resolves itself.

Music thread--Msbelle, yeah I know I can bring up Music in Natter, but the way Natter works it doesn't work well for in depth discussions of stuff on a long term basis. I don't know how to explain it right, except, I don't know jack about music. Basically I was raised on Top 40 radio. The only non Top 40 stuff I know...I learned from online sources (pre Buffista days, Buffistas, LJs, songvids, etc). So I want more exposure to music and I want to...I dunno. I've discovered so many new authors and got new insight on books I know for Literary on a level that just can't happen in Natter, and that's what I'd like from a Music thread.

Banning/Suspension. I'm for 1 Official Warning, then Suspension, then Banning. Knowing the Buffistas it won't be a case of someone saying one thing and then a Stompy Foot comes along with an Offical Warning. The Buffistas will try to reason with the person, try to get the person to play nice. And by the time the Official Warning comes--well there will be proof that reasoning isn't working. Mieskie was like that. He didn't want to play at all. I'm all for Democracy and Second Chances, but we have to a bite to go with a bark,we're just going to start sounding like Angel threatening Lilah.

Dx, death threats from you are a sign of affection? (Gulp.)

Typo Boy, could I tag this:

"So I can't be reliable. I'm an unreliable source of occasional help for the future, though I haven't helped at present." (September 2002)

Aaron Sorkin coming here, as he did on TWOP, and acting like a jerk, and getting himself suspended.

Oh so that explains that episode where Josh interacts with a board and Donna tells him not to get involved because the people are all psychos who haven't taken their medication and/or pathological control freaks who exercise arbitrary banning authority. But he does. And they are.

t /natter

Dx, death threats from you are a sign of affection? (Gulp.)

Shell, only worry if a penguin shows up on your doorstep...

Especially if it's wearing a rubber glove on it's head.

[woo hoo! It's two references in one!]

askye, I just don't like to think of Buffistas getting on each other's nerves that much. Back at TT I was always paranoid that I'd been ENUF'd (usually when I was feeling insecure and ignored). It just gives me a little bit of a squicky feeling, but if there's a consensus that it would be a useful feature, then it's cool. I'm not wigging.

In this particular instance, would inviting him over to this thread have even made a difference?

To the final outcome? Nothing. But it would've taken it out of the Firefly thread. That's reason enough.

And, since we're not making policy to fit specifically mieskie, I should note that for future cases, there is every chance that granting a person the opportunity to respond directly to such a matter could make the difference.

And as far as him not knowing this thread was here...hey, I found it. Noticed that there were an odd amount of new posts here, figured somebody was talking about something, and came on over to check it out.

I don't think I can convey how deeply it would squick me to set policy on this basis. I can think of no reasonable argument that should compromise a person's ability to defend themselves on the basis of whether they're at all interested in "discussion of Buffistas.org administration". I mean, it's good that you are; but there's no way I could support it making a substantive difference to your or anyone else's status here.

Not everyone on this board is going to be watching the Bureaucracy thread. Not everyone is going to be interested in going beyond even a single show thread. None of which means they should be denied the chance to defend themselves.

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'm for keeping porn to the NC-17 threads anyway just for the work friendliness factor....

I can think of no reasonable argument that should compromise a person's ability to defend themselves on the basis of whether they're at all interested in "discussion of Buffistas.org administration"

Should the tagline for this thread be changed to make it more likely that someone will figure out that this kind of talk goes on here?

Somewhere lost in the mists of manic posting, I suggested that the purpose of Bureaucracy be stated in the How To page.