t taken to Natter, supposing I can catch up there this evening

Okay, I'm really not happy with just saying WHAT WE DISALLOW: "personal attacks", which --> if Roberts were to hypothetically show up you could not call her a bad actress.

I really feel it's better articulated in terms of respect, and politeness, which is contextual. If-- all right, I'm nearly unable to use Julia Roberts as an example, with a straight face, but I shall soldier on because I'm too tired to think of something better-- if Roberts showed up in Natter one day talking about her garden, it would be unacceptable for me to go

JULIEA!!!! U suck. U sHuld quit actin g

No. And it would be unacceptable for me to make mean-- spellchecked, articulate, and witty, but mean and the sort of thing she'd feel upset about had she happened upon them accidentally-- jokes about her behind her back.

But say Roberts asked me directly about my opinion of her acting skills. No. Wait. This constructed situation, already weak at the seams, falls apart, especially since for one thing I don't really have an opinion about her acting, because I haven't seen enough of her work for it. OK. Let's say I get into an argument with Roberts (or... any poster!) and, in my opinion, she's being rude, wildly illogical, and offensive in her style of speech. I've got the right to say in Bureaucracy, I think this poster is a troll, but I think I've also got the right to inform her to her face, publicly or backchannel, that I think her posting style is problematic and I believe it's impeding fair discussion of the topic at hand. That's a direct critique of a personal Roberts detail: the way she communicates. But, I think, if I strive to be as polite as possible under the circumstances, I'm not being un-Buffista-y if I tell her that.

I'm just saying, I can see of circumstances when it would be necessary to directly criticise a personal detail of a Buffista. I had another, but, but, I am stupid with lack of sleep, so it's gone. Maybe just something about how I just feel a deep reluctance to tell someone something nice about them, when it's a lie, just to be nice. ... Of course, that leads to just a lot of shutting up when you don't like anything; but... ah shit. I really had an arguable point. I did. I swear. I had a very clever thing to say about how there could be a situation where I would be forced to tell Julia Roberts she was a bad actress! But I have no idea now.

And I really just think it can be articulated more elegantly by just saying "respect and politeness" and not specifying "personal attacks".

I think personal attacks are so mething we definitely disallow. If someone is acting like a troll, we say stuff like "Do not feed the energy creature." But I agree that respect and politeness is the main point. But respect and politeness includes no personal attacks. The only exceptions is where two people attack each other jokingly, and they know each other well enough not to take offense. In the case of someone who acts like a troll - that is why we have the whole warn-suspend-ban process. You don't have to respond to rudeness wit rudeness. If the person won't apologize after a polite informal request than they get a formal warning. If they ignore that suspend. If they ignore that ban. But the point is that you don't need personal attacks here even against those who personally attack you - because we have a process.

But respect and politeness includes no personal attacks.

Yes, and I'm saying I'd rather articulate it as the former than the latter.

Ah. Fuck. I had to have three goes at spelling "articulate" just then. I am taking my ass to bed.

But respect and politeness includes no personal attacks.

So I should go now, then.

But respect and politeness includes no personal attacks.

Defining personal attacks is hard, though. I mean, some of the things that someone might considered good and rational debate come fucking close to personal attacks to the observer, and, it seems, to the other person in the debate at times.

Respect and a willingness to back down and be Doblerized.

Only no personal attacks on people who are registered here Or as you said no shitting where you eat. Which you practice.

Anyone not a registered buffista is fair game. From Celebs to annoying cow-workers to evil ex-bosses. And registered buffista are fair game if it is part of the Kristen and Allyson show.

Respect and a willingness to back down and be Doblerized.

Up to a point. I don't think respect includes giving veto power to the most easily offended.

If the person won't apologize after a polite informal request than they get a formal warning. If they ignore that suspend. If they ignore that ban.

Something I think should be stated clearly for newcomers reading the procedural discussion in this thread: the move to warning stage isn't a hair trigger thing that would likely happen in response to a single poorly-chosen post (unless it were a massively inflammatory one) or disagreement. It's not so much a matter of saying one thing that one other poster takes offense at, as establishing a pattern of offensive behavior. Most of us will have our snippy days now and then, and might say something that will rub a fellow Buffista or two the wrong way—and that's understandable.

Maybe a separate politics thread, or Current Events one?

I would be intrested in this. On the other hand, I might not vote yes for it to happen, because this is heading thread-for-everythingwards. I'd like to talk to Buffistas about all sorts of things: politics, history, culture, art, language, movies, music, science, and so on. I suspect that most of the Buffistas are cleverer than me, and there must be a Buffista specialist for practically everything. It isn't, however, appropiate (as far as I can see) to make threads for all these things, because if I wait long enough they'll be mention breifly in natter. If I miss that discussion, that's bad luck, and I have to wait until it comes up again.