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.

I thought mieskie stepped over the line a few times, but had I been asked I would not necessarily have banned him. That being said, I agree with John H. that based on the circumstantial evidence and the reasonableness of suspicion the board is certainly entitled to an answer to the question. If it helps, I'll volunteer that I'm not mieksie.

And if he says he's not mieskie, how do you know he's telling the truth? Where the f*** does it end?

I'm with connie on this one. I, personally, have never thought they were the same poster.

But what if he says no or prevaricates? Is this going to be dropped or merely go into the 97th round of "I can't prove it but I know it's the same person"?

The suspension was for 2 months, right? I don't think that was an unreasonable amount of time for him to rethink his behavior and decide if this was an appropriate playgound for him.

I am a very tolerant person, but I also think that there is not much sense in having rules if they aren't enforced. If he has violated the suspension then ban him and inactivate the new name. If he really had come back under a new name with the intention of playing nice the fake moustache would have worked and we wouldn't have guessed his identity.

I'm not mieksie.

Me neither. But if anyone asks, I am Spartacus.

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

OK my question right now is exactly that -- what if we could prove it? And what if he admitted it? Surely you would agree with banning him if he came here and posted "yeah, I am mieskie"?