I think that Movies and Politics are the only ones that have been shot down. And with politics, it was proposed, but very few people seemed to be actually interested in posting there.

My real objection to the voting process is that it maybe too rigid and not responsive to circumstance. Maybe we need to have a combination system. If we can't seem to reach a clear consensus on a new thread in a day, then it moves to a vote.

A Politics thread might have its fans, but I very rarely went into the Politics areas of TT. The arguments got a little strident there. I'd trust most of the Buffistas in a political argument in a F2F, but I'd rather not have an open-mike free-for-all here.

I like the idea of a politics thread, and like spoiler threads and mature themed threads you enter at your own "peril". If there's ever a clear, practical way to determine new threads I would vote for it.

A Politics thread might have its fans, but I very rarely went into the Politics areas of TT.

Hmm... this is interesting. So then, connie, do you see us as a replacement for TT?

do you see us as a replacement for TT

Inasmuch as we wanted a place on the Internet to talk to each other about Buffy/Angel/etc., yes. We may be reinventing Table Talk as we go, vis a vis fairly intelligent, sophisticated folk of like minds finding various topics to talk about. I have no problems with it, so long as the Stompies and the server are up to the work load. What makes the system work around here is we've got people who generously donate their time to herd us away from the cliffs and make sure we don't devolve into pointless bickering.

I think that, with the politics thread, it was mostly proposed by people who didn't want politics being discussed in natter. I haven't seen much call for a politics thread by the people who generally tend to discuss politics. (Personally, I'm against a politics thread, because I don't totally see how "politics" can be seperated from general discussions of news or whatever.)

About the "is Schmoker really mieskie"? issue -- ita asked:

John, why don't you send an e-mail?

Well, I did. I won't tell you what the answer is, because I sent it as a private Buffista citizen, not as a stompy foot.

I have reminded him yet again, in my reply to his reply, that the question has been asked here and that he hasn't answered it.

Here are some possible outcomes:

1. He says "no"
2. He says "yes"
3. He prevaricates
4. He prevaricates, but extra proof is forthcoming from evidence in the email itself

What are our feelings on those options?

My thoughts are as follows: I don't hate the "let sleeping dogs lie" thing; but I do hate the idea that someone's ignoring a ban and (possibly) dropping clues about his real identity because he thinks it's funny that he's "beaten" the ban. I think the honourable thing to do, if mieskie wants to come back before his ban is up, would be to write to the admins, ask politely, and let the community decide if we would allow it.

I mean imagine this exchange:

SCHMOKER: "...maybe she had a bad experience on an online message board".

SOME HAPLESS POSTER: "We had an experience like that. There was this mieskie guy and he was really rude and upset people and we had to ban him."

SCHMOKER: "Oh really? Sounds terrible. Anyone play Yahoo Canasta by the way?"

I personally think he's ignoring the question because he thinks it's a moot/irrelevant point. Does he HAVE to prove he's not who some people think he is? This is beginning to smack of "Are you now or have you ever been someone we banned?" Refusing to answer was the honorable course then.

This is beginning to smack of "Are you now or have you ever been someone we banned?"

I really don't agree. Someone either accepts that they've been banned or they don't.

Refusing to answer was the honorable course then.

I totally and utterly reject your comparison of this with McCarthyism. The guy was rude and aggressive and received more than one warning and request to change his behaviour, and then he was banned. If Schmoker is mieskie, then he's come back, ignoring the ban and he's not only breaking the rules, he's mocking us as well.

Being a member of a political party is not a crime. Disturbing the peace is a crime.

This situation is not like the people faced with interrogation by the HUAC refusing to answer because they didn't recognise the validity or the authority of the committee to ask whether they were members of the communist party, making a political point in the process.

This is like some guy coming into your front yard and playing his boombox at full volume and waking your family up in the middle of the night.

Then you get a restraining order and he gets told to stay away for a couple of months.

Instead of staying away, he comes by your house every day wearing a fake moustache and winking at you.

He doesn't wake you up in the middle of the night, but he keeps hanging around, and he keeps winking at you. He's both violating the terms of the restraining order and he's insulting you.

Wouldn't you call the cops?

No, I wouldn't. I'd ignore him until he got bored with trying to make me crazy. Because until he does something actionable in his new incarnation--and you can't prove the guy in the moustache is the same guy--you don't have a legal leg to stand on.