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.

The fact is, if mieskie had responded politely to Betsy, Plei, Fay or anyone else that called him on the comments on Dawn's physique, he wouldn't have even gotten one warning. Please remember that when you're feeling sorry for him, or wondering if the process was fair. Had he acted in a considerate manner after the initial faux pas, none of this would have happened. This wasn't the Buffistas pissing on mieskie. It was mieskie pissing on the Buffistas. The warning became necessary when he continued to argue with people who were politely pointing out why they found the post was objectionable, and then trying to blame everyone but himself for his crude remarks about a minor.

That said, I think when someone gets an on-the-board warning, the end of the warning should say, "If you have any questions about this warning and why you received it, please feel free to address the subject in the Bureaucracy thread." The FAQ and etiquette links should be provided in the warning, as well, so that the offender, if s/he cares to, can go figure out where he erred.

Telling the offender to bring all questions about the warning to Bureaucracy accomplishes two things.

• It removes the appearance that cool kids are talking about you in a secret room (even though they're not, because all the threads are open to everyone to begin with).

• It also takes the warned poster out of the hot environment where s/he committed the offense. Doing this also manages to save the pleasant atmosphere of the thread for the posters who were enjoying it, prior to any incident.

Maybe when the confirmation email is sent, there should be a specific sentence or two referencing Bureaucracy. "Please read the FAQ before posting, if you have questions or concerns about Buffista policies, please visit the Bureaucracy thread located on the right sidebar. Discussions about administration, moderation, and community take place in this thread. If you encounter etiquette problems, this is also the place to air grievances."

You know, but more eloquent.