I get your feelings too. I don't think I saw the stuff in Firefly (?), but I saw the discussion here. It made me tense, I thought it was dropped, then it was on again. The "don't get your panties in a bunch" thing made me cringe, because I knew it was potentially offensive.

Frankly, I do think the burden of proof lies on the accuser, and maintain that treating poster A like poster B without any such backup is unfair. And treating poster A in a hostile manner counts as a pretty personal attack, in my book.

And once again, I love ita.

Not that I ever stopped, mind you!

I don't mind asking Schmoker point blank if it's true because I'd want the answer recorded.

Just for the record, someone publicly did this, very shortly after Schmoker said he was going back to lurking, and there was no reponse. I think it was Elena.

The doctrine that if we can't prove it, we shouldn't say it, troubles me a lot.

1. You can't un-invent an invention, and you can't un-suspect someone of something you suspect them of. I suspect S of being M. What am I to do with my feelings on the subject? I can't treat him like a regular buffista, can I?
2. How could we possibly prove it anyway, short of going round to his home and catching him at it?

Ask Cindy -- IIRC she's been on the receiving end of "similarities" with another poster at another board.

The Bronze Beta displays IP numbers. Mine shows up to be the same as drlloyd11's. S/he was eventually banned (and I believe the Beta Webmaster blocks IP numbers) but I'm not sure how. It didn't affect my ability to post, though I was worried it would.

Thankfully, nobody actually thought that this person and I were the same people. I'd been around a long time, and had some credibility. But if it had happened here or at another board where I'm newer, I would have died. When I first noticed the numbers there (luckily I noticed first), I still felt sick, because I know some people don't understand that two posters can have the same IP number, even though one of them (me) was posting from my private connection in my private home.

There's too much room between "prove" and "think" for me, personally.

This may just be how it has to stay, and if so, yes, I think we have no option other than to be tolerant, welcoming and not make charges we can't back up.

I don't know enough about IP numbers to add anything helpful - but I'm going to ask questions in case my questions prompt someone with that knowledge think of something useful. Going in, I know the answers are likely to be: We have no way to do that, so let's live with it and be nice.

I'm still asking.

Someone (possibly Jon, John, or Rob) mentioned that possibly, the number the Beta displays is not my real and personal IP number and though pp and I showed up as the same poster.

• Is there another number that we can access, that is unique to a person's PC or connection?

I'm thinking there must be, otherwise how could the Beta have blocked drlloyd11 and not me. I know some people have mail programs that display all sorts of header information in an email. Not having that sort of mail program myself, I don't know what, specifically, is displayed.

• Is there any unique identifying information that would come through in an email header?
• Does the Buffistas.org program show detailed headers?
• If so, do/can we capture that information and/or save the confirmation of registration emails for any amount of time?

As a practical solution to the recent events and suspicions, the questions are probably moot. I'm asking in case we ever have a future scenario where we believe a suspended person has registered under a new name and email, we do have a way to investigate it, objectively.

I don't think Schmoker did anything for which he should be suspended. However, I do think that if a suspended person comes in under another name, thumbing one's nose at a suspension is enough to warrant discipline, because it shows flagrant disregard for the community. And really, it gives them a chance to take the Spike role and set us up in the Scoobies' roles in a community theatre production of The Yoko Factor.

I understand and agree with ita's point a few days ago, that we shouldn't talk about unnamed posters here. I was wrong to do so then. I am so sorry. I was trying to determine whether or not we could investigate before any accusations were made, but good intentions yada yada road-to-hell cakes - that doesn't make me less wrong. I agree with ita that I was wrong to do so. I would have deleted, but we both felt it was better to leave a record standing. I'm sorry if/that my earlier post exacerbated the situation here. I'll state for the record that I don't talk back-channel to Hec, Elena, or Sophia, and as far as I know, our suspicions were independent. I did share my suspicions with a few others before I ever mentioned them here. But I don't think I've seen any of them voice the suspicions, so I'm not going to out them.

Despite suspecting him, I tried to take a very gentle hand with him and the one time I remember calling him on anything, I did so (I think) delicately. I also tried to respond to his on-topic posts, despite my suspicions, hoping that even if he was mieskie, he'd just mellow out and feel like he fit, and we could close our eyes to it all. Then the similarities (to me) got to be too blatant.

I understand, agree and affirm that we can't condemn or discipline anyone without any proof. If a suspended person came in and was a positive addition, we'd never suspect him and there'd be no problem, no need for proof. But if in the future, a suspended person came in and flew just low enough under the wire to evade an official warning, but performed enough stunts to get everyone all edgy and independently suspicious, we'd be his or her bitch.

I'm going to tiptoe gingerly around this conversation and say: Jess, I think it would be great to have the Foamies again, however I think we should wait another month or so. This gives all those movies from the end of 2002 a chance to open in more places, and thus makes the nominations process more inclusive.

I love .... Wolfram and ....

I love you too, DavidS.

If I were a SF (which I'm not) I would suggest that a SF gather all the circumstantial evidence including registration dates and times, posts, similarity of phrases, locations, and any inferences from the lack of responsiveness from the accused (failure to plead guilt or innocence) and present it, for this limited purpose, as an anonymous admin poster, or in the alternative, in backchannels. I would then suggest, again for this limited purpose, that all the SFs back-channel a vote on how convinced they were that a violation has taken place. If the votes favor disciplinary action, an email be sent to the violator shifting the burden of proof to his shoulders and giving him an opportunity to defend himself (which he is more than capable of doing if he wants to.) If he fails to create a reasonable doubt (the most lenient legal standard) that he is in violation, then appropriate action be taken.

I believe in this circumstance it is best that the voting is anonymous, and to the extent that the gatherer of evidence prefers to remain anonymous, that the presentation is anonymous as well. It really isn't fair to ban someone without some type of "hearing", but it also isn't fair to allow a violator to flaunt the rules without consequence. I think my proposal, under the circumstances, may work.

You know, I think that pursuing the is Schmoker mieskie question is pointless since he seems to have disappeared. And frankly, since Schmoker hasn't actually gotten a warning, and has left, I'm not that comfortable seeing such an investigation happen.

I favour giving people all the rope they need to hang themselves with. And frankly, until events in Bureacracy, Schmoker didn't seem, to me, to have breached community standards. (Admittedly I did skip and skim some of the show threads.) So I am really not comfortable with any official investigation.

I think that the discussion arising out of what's happening can be valuable. And I think we're on edge because of the influx, and the mieskie sitch. Understandably so. But I do think we need to chill.

A few things: 1) All this harting of Wolfram is mildly disturbing, especially when there's all that lovely dirty legal talk mixed up in it (yes- we all like a nice evil lawyer from time to time! Edit: by which I mean no offense, just gotta make the joke);

2) I agree with Sue that it's fairly pointless to do anything about Schmoker at this point. However, having a discussion of what we think we might do in the future may be helpful- if it stays constructive, and doesn't descend into 'this is all wrong'. Not that it has: and I trust that it won't;

3) The heavy social-political guns that some people brought out upthread do my head in: I like Buffistas, I'm glad to be here, and you/we are coping a lot better with the influx of newcomers than many places would/do;

4) Let's all chill.

All this harting of Wolfram is mildly disturbing, especially when there's all that lovely dirty legal talk mixed up in it (yes- we all like a nice evil lawyer from time to time! Edit: by which I mean no offense, just gotta make the joke);

I love you too, Am-Chau. And I am only evil when it's in the best interests of my client. I guess the real W&H falls into that category as well. That's something to chew on.

I think what a lot of people are worried about is the "getting away with it" factor. If a guy violates the rules, even if he re-lurks, I don't think it's a good policy to ignore it or "let it go". But it isn't the end of the world either.