We are not bound by any law, except the rules that are decided here. I didn't read the posts that resulted in suspension, but for whatever reason it was decided here that the poster be suspended. I do feel it is pointless to have rules and consequences if they are ignored.

For the reasons John and many others have mentioned it may be the suspended person back again in moustache. If that is the case it offends me and I think it should be handled “officially” in some manner. I am not a stompy so it isn’t my job.

What bugs me the most is that this person is causing disharmony not only in his posting, but it has carried over to discussions about his status.

Perhaps I should use the same personal MARCIE filter I use when reading other threads in here as well and skip the unpleasantness.

Quiet note: I am unsubscribing from Bureaucracy. I will re-subscribe when both posting volume and general tone have become more Buffista-like.

If you need me, mail is good.

I'm seeing peace being disturbed by an attempt to enforce community standards.

Yes. This. Or what Kristen and Allyson said.

Gronk.

At this point, if he's a Fuffy, he knows that we know, so it's not like there's wool being pulled over anyone's eyes.

He's behaving, this sort of scenario is more the exception than the rule, in my experience, so please let us all be shaken by the large, firm hands of Lloyd Dobler for the moment.

YOU MUST CHILL.

That is all.

We are not bound by any law, except the rules that are decided here.

True enough, but the laws of America are (generally) based on established social modes of intereaction, back to English common law. And the assumption of innocence would, I hope, be the standard to which any community would hold itself.

If someone insists that they're innocent and there is no substantive evidence to the contrary, we must publically assume he's innocent.

True. Let him do that. So far he's said nothing. I really, really think an answer is warranted and it is not fair to jump on John just because he's standing by his beliefs. Let there be an answer to the question. If he says no, drop it. If he says yes, consider whether a ban is still appropriate since he has been behaving himself.

I think as long as a person (which, really, we can only define as a screenname) behaves him/herself, we have to take them at face value. Period.

I reject, once again, the use of the words "witch-hunt" and the references to McCarthyism. Witches didn't walk around Salem hinting coyly that they were witches, and writers and artists didn't walk around in the 50s hinting coyly that they were Communists. The McCarthy era people who refused to answer turned up to the hearings, and said loudly and clearly why they were refusing to answer for everyone to hear.

I have my own intense commitment to civil rights and free speech and I can't let those assumptions about my position in all this to go unchallenged. I'm honestly very upset that people I've known for years would characterise me like that.

But, if the majority really want me to let it drop, and, especially noted, if veterans of the Bronze and other online communities which suffered from this kind of thing are saying so too, then I'll let it drop.

You guys are so out of line to call what John is doing a "witchhunt". If I were he, I'd be pretty pissed.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask Schmoker is he's mieskie, based on all the odd coincidences of the two posters. And if I were Schmoker and not mieskie, I'd understand why the question was asked and gladly answer it.

Okay, guys, at this point all this discussion is doing is upsetting people, both those who are participating and those of us who are watching and wincing from the sidelines. I'm putting in a plea for separate corners.