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.

I'm with the rusty pipe crew. He *did* have a chance to defend himself -- right there when warned unofficially and officially in thread, and by changing his behaviour. He chose not to.

Coming over here? He has the cachet of being the first big noise troll. I suspect there won't be half as much as chat. A lot of this is people reeling, people hoping this won't have to happen, people yelling "get on with it!".

It wasn't actually a trial we were having up in here. It was a debate on our policy, and wrinkle uncreasing. Sure, all opinions, including those of mieskie's have potential relevance. But I don't think they're required.

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.

(Well, no, actual porn would be roleplaying or fiction, and thus would belong in Bitches/SS(?) or Fic or The Great Write Way, as content dictated. But flirting and silly sexy language still certainly belongs in Natter; and you still really don't actually *really* have a ten-year-old poster who's lurking when she doesn't post, really. She comes, I'm sitting next to her, there have been 1500 posts since her last visit, she skips to the most recent 20 and then says something, then leaves. I just want to stress that. What ita said. Do not modify your behaviour for the spectre of the alicelizard in the corner. This has been a test of the emergency warning system only. Had there been a real alicelizard reading everything, I would have been forced to come out to the rest of my family a little sooner than my mother, for one, would have liked.)

Although, the idea of such a thing here makes me kinda sad.

Hence the six-thousand-(nearly literally)-post discussion back on WX. I would have been against it, too, for reasons I'm not going to bore anyone with now; but I discovered that there'd been the discussion the week *after* everything had seemed to be decided, 'cause I'd been away on vacation, so.

I don't want to restate it over and over, but what he did was mean-spirited and rude, in the sense that, when he was told it was making people feel uncomfortable, the way he talked about MT, he said he was going to stop, then he did it again and again.

To paraphrase, he said something like.

OK I'll stop talking about MT's boobies then.

and then later, in a discussion about something else:

Joss always surprises me. For instance I thought MT was hired to be the ugly Summers sister, and now look at her!

and I'm sure those aren't the only examples.

His attitude was that this was funny, and that we should all get a better sense of humour. It was incredibly childish and attention-seeking. I got the feeling that someone was poking me in the ribs, and when I said "please stop" they said "OK, sorry" [pause] and then poked me in the ribs again. You can't take the "sorry" at face value if they go right ahead and do the thing they're apologising for.

Okay, but didn't he have the chance to defend himself even though he didn't know about this thread?

1. Any defence he mounted, and indeed any accusations made against him, simply clogged up the Firefly thread. That's deeply inappropriate, and IMO sufficient justification for taking it to an administrative thread.

2. He could only defend himself against any charges made specifically in the Firefly thread, and the DNFTEC principle argues against doing so. I certainly didn't engage him on the Firefly thread after a certain point.

3. Defending yourself against an individual or individuals taking offence at one of your posts, and defending yourself against a community proposal that you be suspended or banned for offensiveness, are different beasts.

And doesn't there come a point where regardless of what the defense is, it doesn't excuse or justify the bad behavior?

The right to offer a defence doesn't rest on the quality of that defence. As soon as there's a consensus reached that the defence doesn't excuse or justify said bad behaviour, that's when the suspension occurs. (I feel that where suspension is warranted, it may well happen faster if the person can respond directly.)

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?

...Well, yes. But I think this is a good thing. The situation we're talking about is where it's already been determined that they're at risk of suspension, and thus they have a case to answer (I'm afraid I'm falling into legal terminology here). Now, we had a policy already laid down in writing, and the discussion of what we should do essentially wound up endorsing that written policy. In the future, then, I think it's going to be a lot easier to sort out that issue - our procedure's been given a work-out and it operated pretty well. I think that in the future, we will want the discussion to revolve around the accusations.

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 agree, but I'm thinking of situations where after the person can explain themselves, it may transpire that they did not in fact intend to fail to comply, that something may have been misunderstood (FTR, I think there were a few times when mieskie was misunderstood), that they may honestly have misunderstood the gist of what was found offensive, and so on. And, as always, if that's not the case - I don't think we'll lose any time by letting them speak to the charges against them.

Do not modify your behaviour for the spectre of the alicelizard in the corner.

Heh. My thought being "Sure, she came, she registered, she posted and told us she was 10. But for all we know, one of the registered or unregistered lurkers is ALSO 10, and just hasn't told us. Or 99. Who knows?". I feel like changing or refraining based on someone who has come and said so would be unfair in a "hey, if you'd just stayed quiet or lied, we wouldn't have known!" (OK, one expects we'd figure out she was 10 if she was posting a lot, even if she said she was 35, but not necessarily). It's punishment for being truthful, ya know?

Billytea, I just don't see it. If the poster in question was making it so other posters were avoiding a thread, why would they join that poster in bureaucracy? Could it be an honest, reasoned discussion here if that person was unreasonable in responding to warnings in the original thread? I take your point that he may have been confused when one or two posters were offended, but when an official stompy foot or the admin login says something, then there should be NO confusion about his possible status. Nor if he/she had read the FAQ or been sent a private email.

Frankly, I'm against making procedures easier for newbies than for regular posters-- e.g., telling a problem newbie that a thread he didn't bother to check out was over there on the right for him to flame right through.

Wrod, Shawn.

FWIW, I think we do need to make more effort to ensure people know about this thread -- either by explaining it in the etiquette, or by including a notice that bureaucracy is the place to discuss policy decisions in the official warning message. (I'd favor both, actually). It seems more fair to me.

Billytea, I just don't see it. If the poster in question was making it so other posters were avoiding a thread, why would they join that poster in bureaucracy?

I don't see that as relevant. The question is the standards we're going to present. I think right of reply should be such a standard. They don't want to avail themselves of such, fine. They don't even know they may have to, that's another matter.

Could it be an honest, reasoned discussion here if that person was unreasonable in responding to warnings in the original thread?

First, note again that I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we simply assume, without giving them the opportunity to respond, that they really have been unreasonable as opposed to misunderstood or such like. But in any case, maybe they'd be reasonable here, maybe not. If so, well and good. If not, would the matter not be rather swiftly resolved? If they starts flaming the discussion as to whether they should be suspended, I'd expect suspension to follow pretty damn quickly.

I take your point that he may have been confused when one or two posters were offended, but when an official stompy foot or the admin login says something, then there should be NO confusion about his possible status. Nor if he/she had read the FAQ or been sent a private email.

Will they know automatically that they've offended again?

Frankly, I'm against making procedures easier for newbies than for regular posters-- e.g., telling a problem newbie that a thread he didn't bother to check out was over there on the right for him to flame right through.

Why do you think this makes things easier for newbies than regulars? Wouldn't we extend the same principle to regulars?