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.

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.

Okay, but didn't he have the chance to defend himself even though he didn't know about this thread? And doesn't there come a point where regardless of what the defense is, it doesn't excuse or justify the bad behavior? Don't you think that if he had been made aware of this thread earlier, that much of the conversation would have gone to defending the accusations he was making about us, as opposed to being about what should be done and how?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be difficult and I think that of course everyone has the right to defend themselves if they're being accused of something. I just feel that once someone's been admonished repeatedly by the actual posters in the thread, and then officialy warned by a Stompy Foot, that why they're refusing to comply with the requests to stop the offending behavior maybe shouldn't make that much of a difference to the end result. I mean, if someone has some sort of problem that's so severe that they can't conduct themselves with respect towards the community as a whole, while that may be very sad, it doesn't seem to me that the situation should require any special treatment towards said poster at the cost of the rest of the community. If the behavior is being caused by a specific set of circumstances that's affecting the poster in question, and not just general trollishness, then I think the two month suspension would still be the best course of action. When the suspension period is over, hopefully the poster is in a better place, and can come and try again.