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?

What happens was that Anathema revealed solid, final evidence, after hinting and hinting and wink-wink-nudge-nudge-ing, that his posts were being written by the same person who had been writing the posts of a persona now banned. And that meant we needed to ban him again, because he was trying to get away with-- again-- that rules-don't-apply-to-me bit.

And the rules apply to every Buffista! They apply to me! They apply to ita! It's part of the definition of Buffista-dom!

We treat these slippery online identities with respect, as if they were people ('cuz mostly they are.

t getting my disquisition on

And, you know, I really see that position, too. I get all het up when people casually discourage online communication, for example-- I'm Rebecca Lizard as much as I am [birth name here], thank you very much; my online self and my online relationships are just as valid and important (in a couple cases, more) as my "real life" self and "real life" relationships.

But the fact is is that the medium of online life lends itself to greater mutability than real life does. I'm fairly damn constant, I believe, as this Lizard; and this Lizard is a pretty real and rounded person; and I wear her pretty close to the skin; but I could also, if I took the fancy, create a new email address, start a new name, and join a new community-- hey presto, there's an entire new being called into person. And it could be whatever I want it to be. If I wanted it to be so, no one would ever need to know it was connected to Rebecca Lizard. If I wanted it to be so, its life wouldn't have to have anything to do with Rebecca Lizard. It could be someone who discusses pro baseball and the Simpsons all the time. It could be a homophobic conservative reactionary person. I could write all of its dialogue with total ironic (ironic in its technical sense) distance; and I could do this just as an exercise of will.

Not that I think Anathema was necessarily writing all of his posts with total ironic distance, at all. But, on the face of things, he presented Schmoker/Anathema as being a different person, unconnected to mieskie. And that is what I'm talking about.

And you can't *do* that casually, at all, in "real life". Bring a new being into the room, call someone into place just by power of your will and your words in their mouth. So while I do respect people online as people, I also am aware of the possibilities of degrees of simply-persona-ness inherent in the form.

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.

Well, exactly. But he broke the terms of his suspension (which were... suspension! As in, an enforced period of no-talky) by registering and posting as Michael. Which is *very, very against the rules*. And that's the final reason why we banned him.

Is how I'd seen it.

after hinting and hinting and wink-wink-nudge-nudge-ing, that his posts were being written by the same person who had been writing the posts of a persona now banned.

I just have to say that I never saw this. If you're referring to his love of canasta, I think that was a slip up on his part. My mind could be changed on this, but I'd have to see specific examples.

The official voting page is up at [link]

I'm about to head out for the evening, so someone will have to post the text of the ballot with a link to the page above at midnight.

I'll be back 2am or so (unless I get very lucky ;), so I can deal with any problems then.

he broke the terms of his suspension (which were... suspension! As in, an enforced period of no-talky) by registering and posting as Michael. Which is *very, very against the rules*. And that's the final reason why we banned him.

For the record, I've been looking back over this, and he did it not once but twice.

He re-registered as "mmmieskie" and got in one more post. We deactivated "mmmieskie".

He then re-registered as "Michael" and got in five more posts on Bureacracy before we deactivated "Michael".

At that point a few people discussed banning him forever because of his violation of the terms of his banning, but we shied away from that idea.

It could be someone who discusses pro baseball and the Simpsons all the time.

I want to talk to that person! Go make him or her up, Lizard.

John saw more of it than I did, but I saw some.

I also, honestly, would have expected him to answer the "Are you mieskie?" question with a polite, immediate "No, I'm not, what makes you think so?", instead of that lengthy chasearound and then the blowup. (It reminded me, slightly, of when my little sister Calla is asked directly if she did something wrong, and instead of answering she keeps stammering and telling me how upset it makes her that I'd even ask such a question.)

that lengthy chasearound and then the blowup

Which, again, just for the record, he then deleted. My posts are there, everyone else's posts are there, but the post in which he called me a "Nazi pit bull" and denied even knowing who mieskie was, is gone.

Do we really need to do a post-mortem on this now?

OK, we don't need a post-mortem, but if there are facts which people have forgotten, or appear to have forgotten, you have to forgive people having the impulse to point them out or correct the record.

you have to forgive people having the impulse to point them out or correct the record.

I'm completely forgiving of the impulse. I get it. But I don't think there's any record and going over it more at this point seems unnecessary. Aside from everything else, I do think Anathema had come to like and value the community. He's absented himself to avoid any further diviseness. Let's respect that. He's taking the loss at this point. Anything else leans towards last-wordism.