I do think Anathema had come to like and value the community.

See, I think there are several instances of offensive behaviour from S/A (not SA) and p/a apologies. The very fact that he reregistered and posted after being suspended/banned strikes me as thumbing his nose at our community standards - which does not seem like valuing (or respecting) our community.

But it is over, and I'm fine with this being my last word on the subject. And please note that it's more last than Hec's.

---

{{{{{{{Stompies}}}}}}}

---

OK Hec, I get where you're coming from. But honestly? It freaks me out that you keep referring to him as Anathema,

Just to keep it straight for me, I call him Anathema when I'm referring to recent events since that was his name when this happened, and mieskie when he was banned. It's just a timeline placeholder distinction to me.

a poster who seems like a nice guy and it's a pity we had to ban him.

Hmmm, it's not that so much. I did see him trying that's all. And I do think it's a loss for him. That's it.

There is no Anathema. There's only mieskie. He was banned once, and he came back a total of three times and was deactivated each time.

I know what he did wrong. I'll be very direct about it - I thought it was a horrible deal when you left and Anathema was still here. I think you contribute so much to this board and it was very upsetting to me. I didn't feel like there was the will in the community to dig around in the issue of Anathema's identity. But I wanted you back and that's why I emailed you. I missed you. shrugs Don't misunderstand my loyalties here. I just feel a little rueful about the whole thing. Like it didn't have to be as hard on you, or the community or him. Like we should've handled it all better. But I don't think we did terribly either. I don't know if I can explain it any better than that. But making statements for the record now just doesn't feel right to me now. It's your prerogative, but I don't think you need to defend yourself against anything.

---

I'd also like to say the following.

As someone pointed out above, we've placed our Stompies in a difficult position. I'd like to see people try and remember that and give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd like for everyone to be given the benefit of the doubt, of course, but especially the Stompies, and especially when we deal with particularly difficult issues.

---

As someone pointed out above, we've placed our Stompies in a difficult position. I'd like to see people try and remember that and give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd like for everyone to be given the benefit of the doubt, of course, but especially the Stompies, and especially when we deal with particularly difficult issues.

Concur, and thank you for pointing that at Dana.

---

Jon-- I can post what posts at midnight.

That is I can post the voting thing.

Also

{{{{Stompies}}}}}

Ya'll did the right thing, and we love you!

---

I tested the latest ballot to see if the response was directed to my email for counting. It is working. Good night all.

Much love for the Stompies!

---

Pro and Con positions on all items, courtesy Leise, David, Type Boy and Sophia

ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD

Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?

Yes: --I believe that this will put the discussion in a place where it is easy to put a cap on it-- to make it end. It will also prevent people from avoiding Bureacracy and prevent day to day Bureaucratic requests from being lost. It is also a good mindset to help keep voting as something that is out of the ordinary-- not for day to day things like whether or not to have quotes in the upper corner or a B in our address bar.

No.--I believe that discussion should remain in the Bureaucracy thread. These are bureaucratic issues so I feel this is the correct place for them. Alternately, we will have two streams of conversation regarding each issue, first in Bureaucracy to propose a vote and then in the Voting thread to resolve it. I feel that we should not need a technological mechanism to close and open discussion, but the community should respect a simple post in Bureaucracy. Adding another thread adds fussiness to the process I feel is unnecessary. So far, we have been able to handle day-to-day Bureaucracy simultaneously in the thread.

ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION

Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?

Yes:--I think the discussion period is long enough, if announced ahead of time, that we can both get any ambiguities in the ballot and deal with any questions. Since I think there should be a separate discussion thread, I see it would be easy to close that thread when voting starts. If someone has a question on the wording, I think they could ask in Bureaucracy.

No:-- The reason I think discussion needs to continue once voting start, is that a lot of people may not think about the issue until voting starts. It may not be just a matter of questions. There could be actual arguments no-one has thought of. Please, we are closing discussion once the issue is voted on. Let's not confine discussion to four days before that.

ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count?

2-- I was against the voter turnout in the first place, but I think that if the general Buffista population doesn't show up to vote no, the vote should stand. We are a community that prides itself on participation and self-rule, and shouldn't need much of a minimum number to keep u sparticipating. Also, I feel this is the simplest option {view not actually that of the author}

30--If thirty people can't be arsed to choose yes or no on something, is it worth changing? I am afraid that 50 might be too high at some point.

65--I feel that this number should be deliberately high so as to prevent frivolous change. If we are aiming for a system that improves on consensus, we should strive to include as many people as possible in the decision-making process. If the community as a whole is indifferent to the issue, then perhaps it needs to rest. Later if community support for the issue has been garnered, we will be able to put it up for vote again (after a reasonable period of time has passed.) Personally, I feel that 65 is about right. To date, there is no poll that has come up, however silly, that about a hundred people haven't voted on. We have an active community. I doubt there will be many issues that make it to the polls that we are completely unwilling to vote on.

Do votes of "no preference" count toward this?

Yes.--While it is possible to feel that an issue should be settled, and discussion should be closed, one may not have strong feelings either way. Voting 'no preference' allows you to register your interest in the issue, but that you would prefer to let those who passionately care about the issue settle it. It also gives a better gauge of interest in the vote, and makes the minimum voter turnout figure better reflect the community's position.

No--I think that again, if 30 or so people can't be arsed to choose between yes or no, what is the point in changing. I know others don't feel this way, but...how can your vote "count" when it is not a vote? A vote of no preference is just a vote toward the majority, whichever it may be. The only point I see to it is to up the MVP, but then the MVP should just be a lower number.

Item four continued here: Sophia Brooks "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 15, 2003 11:25:52 pm EST

---

The reason I think discussion needs to continue once voting start, is that a lot of people may not think about the issue until voting starts. It may not be just a matter of questions. There could be actual arguments no-one has thought of. Please, we are closing discussion for six months once the issue is voted on. Let's not confine discussion to four days before that.

t edited to close bold someone left open.

---

closed tag.

I agree Typo Boy.

---