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.

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.

The original suspension was entirely public. The evidence that came up indicating mieskie was Anathema came about from Anathema himself sending in a picture to Jon. Now, the fact that Jon runs the Buffista gallery is separate from his stompy duties, but he's still a stompy. mieskie's picture was already out there publically on the net. I know that more than one Buffista had satisfied their own curiosity and found the mieskie picture. I had heard also that the mieskie picture was being discussed on LJs. So, as Allyson notes, the Stompys were basically forced to deal with the situation.

The only aspect which was decided by the Stompys, was simply to give Anathema a chance to come clean publically and make amends. Since this gesture was gracious, inclusive, forgiving, and not interested in either public humiliation nor divisive debate - I personally feel very comfortable with them making that call. It seems very in keeping with Buffista values.

edit: And again, mieskie was suspended. That happened by consensus. Anathema was approached back channel with the evidence. He himself chose to leave the boards. The stompys did not ban him backchannel.

Jess - If I read this all correctly (might not have) they didn't ban him. They found out he was the same person and contacted him about it, and he chose to resign.

Stompies, if that hadn't been the case, if Anathema had asked for a second chance, would this have been disclosed to the community?

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

Which stompies, is my question? I was privy to no such decision, and if you're saying that the other stompies are making decisions without me, this is serious indeed, and should be addressed.

To my knowledge, Anathema was not banned. Anathema left.

edit: He was asked to to post his real identity to the board, and demurred, saying it wouldn't make a difference.

I had heard also that the mieskie picture was being discussed on LJs.

Livejournal is not this board. Livejournal is backchannel gossip. It doesn't count as "public" no matter how many people are on the Friends list.

Just to weigh in, given the way that this situation came about, I have no issue with the backchannel aspect. My only problem is that I wish it (the backchanneling) hadn't been referenced on the board. At all. Certainly not until people were ready to say: This is what is going on.

The odd cryptic posts from last night made a lot of people feel uncomfortable and made it seem as though there were some backchannel machinations and secret meetings going on.

Edited to clarify what the hell I was saying.

To my knowledge, Anathema was not banned. Anathema left.

Liese just said his account was deactivated.

It doesn't count as "public" no matter how many people are on the Friends list.

Livejournal is not this community, but it is highly disingenuous to suggest that it isn't public. And the only point I'm making is that there is leakage between this community and various private discussions, some of which are not particularly private.