Darrien, he wasn't booted for having a contrary position. Contrary positions are fine, although I always wonder why someone would come to a thread and say "this sucks."

He personally offended a number of people on the board, and when people complained he said we shouldn't be offended. No apologies, no modification of his behavior.

I think mieskie has interesting things to say, but if he can't carry on a conversation without pissing off the other people in the dialogue, and refuses to acknowledge that the problem might be *him*, then this is not the place for him.

If he was booted because he was a disruption to the community, I can dig that.

He was booted because he was a disruption, he was insulting (directly) to community members, and because he continued to be disruptive and insulting after he was given a formal warning.

He crossed the line from abrasive to abusive repeatedly.

Certainly your perspective is welcome, Darrien.

It looked a little like he was booted for having such a contrary position in regards to the quality of Firefly, which would be censorship, which I believe isn't the goal of this site.

That is very regrettable, and it certainly isn't the impression I got from reading the thread - but you have a fresh perspective which I lack. fwiw, there are plenty of Buffistas who don't like Firefly and have said so. That isn't a problem. There are also Buffistas who greatly disliked last season of BtVS or AtS, and others who very much liked them. Having a difference of opinion isn't a problem. In the Firefly thread different people - old and new - have expressed different opinions on which episodes they liked or disliked.

I think it really is the abrasiveness and perceived lack of respect that's the problem, because that's not the style of discourse favoured on this board. I know it is elsewhere.

It looked a little like he was booted for having such a contrary position in regards to the quality of Firefly, which would be censorship, which I believe isn't the goal of this site.

Darrien, I can see how it might look that way (and certainly that's how he would like to see it), but in fact, his position on the show didn't seem that contrary to me. He said it was an excellent show, but it's ratings sucked. Had he voiced his opinion in that way, I don't think anyone would have argued with him, even. So I don't think the problem was his *position* but rather his contrary *disposition.*

As to the censorship claim, I think you'll find that this community tolerates a fair degree of difference, as long as it isn't presented rudely. But that's something that will unveil itself to you over time.

Darrien - Mieskie was disruptive to the community and ignored explicit warnings. When you look through the threads you will see we often have contrary opinions and do not censor members. We will protect the friendly nature of our playground. And Welcome!

edit: wow xposty with 6 foamy Buffistas!

Massive, massive, massive crossposting.

t giggling

Holy mother of Crossposts. Darrien? Don't be scared, babe. Sorry.

eta

I'm really glad you spoke up, because it's good to get some insight into how the interaction seemed to someone not familiar with the general tone of conversation and banter around here. Coming to the Firefly thread without any preconceptions about what's normal I can see that you might not have found the 'poem' as jarring as did I. But I found it very jarring.

As to referring to MT as a "bint" with massive "teats" - well, that's not just vulgar, it's derogatory and belittling, and it's in reference to a minor. In a forum which has been quoted and linked to in a number of media, and in which the girl's colleagues have posted. Not so good.

The one thing that people probably didn't see is that there were users who left the Firefly thread after mieskie started posting. The whole tone of the thread changed, it became more strained and everyone had their backs up.

People left without saying so in Firefly because they just didn't want to deal with that kind of atmosphere.

And when you have one person making a thread so uncomfortable that others are leaving, then you have a problem.

And my point again, he said one thing and did another. He said the equivalent of "all right, if it upsets you, I won't talk about MT's huge breasts any more". Which isn't funny.

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.

Well....that's not exactly what I said. I can agree that there can be cases where inviting the offender over to this thread (or any other set up),could be beneficial in the decision making process,but I don't think it would be unfair not to. I don't think that handholding people through normal social interaction should be a requirement to any process. I don't have a problem with doing it if it's what the majority wants, but I don't think it's necessarily a "right" that offenders must have. I think that sometimes you can assess guilt right from the get-go. If someone is warned or advised that something they've said is offensive and breaks community rules and responds with "Fuck you!", I don't think that person has any rights as far as this community goes. As far as I'm concerned, they've forfeited any rights that may have been afforded to them. I don't think a message saying "Please come over to thread X for the chance to defend your position in case I've misunderstood your intentions when you said "Fuck you"" is something that is due them.

Again, I have no problems with making what you're suggesting part of policy. I just think that if it doesn't occur, no one has the grounds to cry that the procedure was unfair.