A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Here we go:
"The stompies were recently presented irrefutable evidence that Anathema was the poster formerly known as mieskie (photos were involved). He was asked to offer a public apology, but refused because of his sincere belief that it would stir up resentment on the board. He's learned to really respect this place and felt that his continued presence would be divisive. Therefore he agreed to leave.
"The Stompies felt that it was important to deal with this backchannel because we saw no benefit to a public flogging. Anathema has promised that he would not reregister again under another name, and we believe him. We see no reason to discuss this further."
We see no reason to discuss this further.
Well, I can see how this will stick in a few craws.
My interpretation of that is that
we
we, admins we see no need to discuss it further. I'm sure not speaking for anyone else's need.
I'm sure not speaking for anyone else's need.
Thanks for the clarification.
It should be made clear, that we didn't do anything ... someone realised that a pic of Anathema was a pic of mieskie, and Anathema was pinged.
He copped to it, decided to leave, forestalling any discussion, since he didn't see any way he could stay even if he were allowed to.
End of story, really.
It was just waiting for someone to ask, and working out how to say all that without sounding like a terrible dark cabal. Perhaps not the most successful attempt.
Thanks for the narrative, ita. I think it helps mitigate the vague dark cabal inferences I was making from your previous announcement. The narrative version is a lot clearer about who did what.
RL, others, was this the laundry in need of airing? If it is, I think it's fair game for discussion now, and I'm curious what you all were thinking in re the above.
I assume it was.
Based on remarks of extreme crypticosity, of course.
I think that it raises an interesting point, though, regarding enforcement of suspensions/banning. Namely - how do we enforce it?
I'm sorry it all worked out this way - that it did turn out to be the same person, and that there wasn't a way to resolve it short of losing someone who finally did seem to find their footing in the community. But I agree it's hard to see another way here.
[What's possibly most frustrating about this - how many times in the beginning was he asked to just hang on and learn the ways of the community before going off and getting disruptive? And when he did, hey presto, it pretty much worked. But with too much in the background and too many deliberate violations to turn back. Ah, well, done now.]
