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?

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.

Okay...I agree that the thread shouldn't get clogged up with endless repetitions of the same argument, and DNFtEC is basically sound advice. But when someone is repeatedly posting insulting and offensive material, I think that there should be a certain amount of speaking up within the thread. Anyone new wandering into the thread and seeing offensive posts going unrefuted, may completely assume that that type of behavior is acceptable.

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.

I think that case is rare (not that that means it shouldn't be provided for). If mieskie was misunderstood a few times, I think the fault lies with him, not us. He set up a situation in which people were very wary of what he was saying. And as far as him misunderstanding what people found offensive, I think rereading the exchanges that occured, negates that theory as far as mieskie goes. He understood why people were saying they were offended, he just didn't think that we should be. Bottom line to me is that people were offended, and he was told this many times in no uncertain terms. What should the response be when someone says that they understand that what they are saying is offending you, but since they don't think it should, that they are doing nothing wrong?

I don't disagree with you that there could be cases in which bringing the offending party over to this thread could be beneficial. I just don't think that it should necessarily be a required step. By all means, if a case arises where enough people think that someone isn't being just contrary, but is legitimately confused....bring them on over and see if the situation can be defused without resorting to a suspension. But not every case (and IMHO, not this one),warrants it. When someone is so blatantly disregarding community rules and thumbing their noses at us at every turn, I don't see why they should get any sort of special consideration.

I have to go for awhile, but I'll be back later to check for your response (if you have one).

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.

Wrod.

I have to go for awhile, but I'll be back later to check for your rersponse (if you have one).

Basically my response is that if we're setting policy, then that policy shouldn't be determined on the basis of either the one specific example we've had so far, nor on the basis that we can assume the ability to sort the guilty from the innocent before the fact.

If you do agree that there can be cases where it would be unfair to proceed without the person in question getting the chance to reply, then I think that's sufficient to provide for it in our procedure.

I should add, I'm less than keen to have them derailing the Bureaucracy thread either. I din't think it's a fully appropriate place for such matters - especially given a significant risk of such procedures getting flamed out (brief though that may be). Which is why I recommended setting up a separate thread for such discussion - basically as a quarantine measure. Keeps it out of Bureaucracy, and gets it out of the original thread.

But when someone is repeatedly posting insulting and offensive material, I think that there should be a certain amount of speking up within the thread.

Yeah, it's always a difficult balance to make. I think that a stompy post along the lines of 'the community is currently discussing whether your behaviour warrants suspension. If you wish to say anything on the matter you can go to thread XYZ' would adequately provide that speaking up. There's little clearer sign that their behaviour isn't countenanced here.