All I have to say is basically what other people have said, especially Nutty right up there. I do think we handled the whole thing as well as we could have, but it is too bad that it took so much upset and everything before the poster figured out how to act around here. Ah well.

I think there's been a lot of bad behavior on all sides in this matter, in all honesty. I hope that as much as Anathema learned to be part of the community, the community can learn to handle disruptions more maturely.

And, as a general rule, I think hinting in public fora about backchannel stuff is bad form, whether it's foregrounding a private joke or trying to ask when action you know is being considered will be taken. Backchannels are *back*channels for a reason, after all.

[stupid double post]

I wanted to talk about the idea of Banned Posters Reregistering In General, as some people were beginning to, last night. This is my position.

John had said, to me, in AIM:

I mean, like I've said before, if the guy would just admit it, apologise for lying, ask for mercy, then it'd be a different thing.

And I said (this is cobbled together from AIM responses):

... No.

What exactly is effected when M was banned, what was M's loss, precisely? He was barred from posting under the persona of mieskie. The persona of mieskie was banned. And we could do that, we could lock up his user name and everything. The man who was writing the posts-- him, now, we can't. There's no way for the Buffistas to physically restrain him from every being among us again; there's no way for us to prevent someone from re-registering.

So what he really was supposed to lose was not actual passage to Buffistas.org, but rather the name mieskie, and the persona, and *history* he had built up with us as that persona; the fact that people already knew his name. (Of course, since many people's relationships with him were largely... antagonistic, I can't completely honestly see why he fought so hard to keep that.)

So, in practice, if a banned person re-registered under a different name and worked very hard to keep it so that he was kind and polite and appreciated the second time 'round, and nobody knew it was the same guy; then that's all right. That's what's supposed to happen in the case of a banned person still being interested in the board. What if Generic Badguy (I'm not speaking about m/S/A specifically at this point; this is an abstraction)Version 2.0 never creates any trouble and never drops any hint he was the old, banned poster? You could never tell. You'd be blissfully ignorant; and maybe you'd love to pieces the new poster when you'd hated the old one.

And my point was: what mieskie-Schmoker did badly, if they are the same person, was to blur those lines and keep hinting that he, S, was also m, culminating with the outrageous act of sending Jon a picture that already existed on the web with identification as mieskie. That's him saying over and over, "the rules don't apply to me, I was banned but I'm still talking, I'm that same old guy, wink, wink". (Exactly the way mieskie registered as /mieskie and mieskie/ mmieskie and finally Michael, to get his goddamn last word in. That's the thing about suspension-banning. You're not *supposed* to be able to get the last word in! You don't have that right! You're not supposed to be able to post at all!)

Or rather my point was, that illusion. He can't *admit* he is m. That's not the right thing to do here. It's the bloody opposite. The right thing to do is not beg for mercy, but rather live by a strict code of not-annoying-everybody and not-dropping-hints-that-you're-a-banned-poster.

So if he actually did drop, admit he was m, and beg for mercy? I'd say we'd be forced to ban him again. I'd say that absolutely. I would filibuster Bureaucracy until it happened. (Joke. Joke.)

And then, if he were still interested in the board, which I think he is, he would re-register and pretend again. Hopefully-- if he were truly penitent-- being good this time. And we would never know, because he would work so hard and be so pleasant and not be dropping hints all the time. And that would be all right. That would be the way it is *supposed* to be.

Hey guys. Just wanted to make it clear that we did formalize it. His account is deactivated now. The choice to leave was his own, we've just made it official.

I'm very disturbed that an executive decision concerning banning (IMO, a topic that should be taken more seriously than any other) was made backchannel, based on information and events that occured backchannel, especially in the midst of our "no more fake consensus, we vote on stuff now, goooooooo democracy!" transformation.

I'm not saying we should bring him back (I suspect that had we discussed this for 4 days and then voted, the outcome would have been the same), but the fact that none of this happened publically turns my stomach.

Whatever was going on backchannel, the Anathema-persona was never a troll on the board. So we basically just banned someone for being an asshole over email, yes? And we're all okay with that? That's a precedent that nobody minds setting?

No, Jess, they upheld a ban on someone.

Lizard, I see your long-held fascination with the mutability of persona and identity in this. Which is certainly a valid take.

So what he really was supposed to lose was not actual passage to Buffistas.org, but rather the name mieskie, and the persona, and *history* he had built up with us as that persona; the fact that people already knew his name.

I wouldn't infer "supposed" here. Because while the fluidty and non-knowability of actual persons informs an online community, we act as if each boardname were an individual with responsibilties that can be held accountable. It's all a consensual hallucination, I suppose, but not much different from the way the world works itself. If somebody introduces himself to you at a party as Gerald Tynes, you take him at his word for it. The effect is excacerbated in cyber communities, but you don't really know that Gerald is really Gerald. Or a very good drag king in disguise. Or a sexbot with a license to thrill.

So you take things on faith, on surface value to a certain extent. Because things work better that way. At least for the kind of casual interaction that informs a cocktail party - which has always been a handy referent for our community.

So what was "supposed" to happen with the suspension was that mieskie took an enforced hiatus as a punishment for abusing community standards, and then could return. We treat these slippery online identities with respect, as if they were people ('cuz mostly they are. I've met a bunch. Pretty much who they say they are.), and expect them to act respectfully toward the community.

Misha raises interesting questions about backchannel again. I wonder if it needs to be broached in the FAQ? I guess it's basic Netiquette, but it would be useful, I think, to have a quick discussion of the principles so that everybody is clear on what's appropriate.

Thing is, this particular situation not only happened on the boards, but also out there in LJ land, email, official stompy email and IM. It would be good to have a clear sense of how to negotiate those various layers of privacy and public comment, and how that plays on the boards.

I'm very disturbed that an executive decision concerning banning (IMO, a topic that should be taken more seriously than any other) was made backchannel

You'll have to enlighten me -- this decision is one of which I have no knowledge. Who made it, and who was intending to enforce it?

The decision to ban Anathema, ita. Made by the stompies yesterday.