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.

---

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think you guys are turning your noses up at newbies. You just need to get to know them first. That's not a reflection on you as a community, it's a reflection on you being a community made up of human beings.

Thank you, Monique.

Maybe it's best if we look at the influx of new folk as something more along the lines of the new freshmen arriving at school vs. something more akin to an invasion. Some first-years will acclimate nicely, and make fast friends with people in other grades. Others will keep to themselves while figuring out where they best fit in. Then, there will be a few twerps who try to rewrite the rules to their liking, and make asses of themselves by trying to "outcool" the ones they ones they perceive (for whatever reason) as the "cool kids."

I do think that having a certain troll show up at the same time as an influx of new members has only served to make us a little jumpy, wondering if there's another one like him out there somewhere. I think a lot of people are still very shaken by what happened. As for me, I'm now at a point where it would be hard to imagine certain threads without Deena, or PaulJ, or wolfram, or MechaKrelboyne, or....

---

I love you too, Am-Chau.

considers

Humm. I like green, I look good in diamonds...

Love you too.

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.

You wanna take that to Previously? Becuase I'd love to chew over W&H with you, but this isn't the place.

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".

I'm inclinded to leave something unprovable be, until there's actually a real problem. While he's lurking, he's no breaking anything. Let's chill and leave it be, on a 'let sleeping dogs lie' principle.

Edit:

I think this

the new freshmen arriving at school

is a helpful version of what connie n. was trying to get at earlier.

---

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

I guess my thing is that he hasn't been banned, or even warned. There's nothing but suspicions behind the allegations. Pursuing it seems premature, and maybe a little witch-hunty.

---

Interesting discussions. If you don't mind an only-occasional poster chipping in, I'd much rather risk possible sock-puppets "getting away with it" than risk condemning someone unjustly based on circumstantial evidence, especially now that someone isn't here to defend himself. Personally, I've found Schmoker's posting style a bit grating, but not offensive in a way that may merit banning. Now that he seems to have disappeared, I'd prefer it if we just let the sleeping dogs lie.

---

If you don't mind an only-occasional poster chipping in

I swear, the next person that says something like this, I'm going to bonk on the head. In a gentle, affectionate manner.

We want to hear your opinions. Everyone's opinions. The only way this works is if those who care contribute to the discussion. It doesn't matter how often you post, what threads you post in, how long you've been posting, who you talk to, who you don't talk to, or whether you dislike the use of the word "foamy." If you have something to say, by all means, speak up. We want to hear you.

---

Maybe it's best if we look at the influx of new folk as something more along the lines of the new freshmen arriving at school vs. something more akin to an invasion.

We could treat them like arrivals at boot camp, and set about weeding out the faint of spirit. NEWBIES! DROP AND GIVE ME TWENTY MEARAS!!

---