The first line of my Post I Still Want To Post was

It's my opinion that we should always make a short, flat-of-tone note in Sunnydale Press when someone has been banned, so that everybody, including the people who don't read Bureaucracy, will know.

so yeah, me too.

... t evil We could vote.

My reasoning? I feel that Avoiding Unpleasant Feelings should take second place to Clearing The Air.

I will note that my personal feeling is that this will not Clear The Air, but rather muddy everything.

Bureaucracy is a public board. If you want to know what's going on with board administration you have to read it. Since mieskie wasn't banned, but chose to leave after his deceit was exposed, I don't think it's incumbent upon us to underscore that fact. If mieskie was banned I could see the argument for it. Since the whole point of his self-removal was to end the divisiveness that he had caused, I don't see the value in dragging this out any further. In fact, I think it has a negative value.

Just my opinion.

Since mieskie wasn't banned

...and this is why I feel like Spike explaining Ben/Glory over and over again.

Mieskie was banned. Three times.

A total of three accounts were deactivated. Mieskie, mmmieskie, and Michael. The last two were him coming back in direct defiance of the first one.

The last incarnation just lasted longer.

time-delay cereal:

You know?

I still really want to discuss this. Anathema/whatever is gone, but the *generalized* issues are still very alive.

And I think a substantial-enough amount of other Buffistas still want to discuss it too.

I don't want to drop the subject yet. *Not* discussing it is making *me* upset. I think this is an important thing to have discussed; and I want to feel I am able to talk about it here.

(And, if discussing it is making you upset, I say, perhaps insensitively? I skipped hundreds and hundreds of voting-discussion posts because they made my head hurt and my heart ache. I also gave up my voice in that discussion. If this bannage-discussion makes you upset... maybe you could do the same.)

t edit Or, not cereal! I still hold to it, though.

I will note that my personal feeling is that this will not Clear The Air, but rather muddy everything.

I'm with David on this. Dogs. Sleep. Lie.

(And, if discussing it is making you upset, I say, perhaps insensitively? I skipped hundreds and hundreds of voting-discussion posts because they made my head hurt and my heart ache. I also gave up my voice in that discussion. If this bannage-discussion makes you upset... maybe you could do the same.)

Fine. I'm out of here. Someone let me know when we stop gnawing on each other.

Serial:

Rebecca, I think it's too soon to talk generalities out of this case. You and John, at least, are still clearly pissed off about the particular case, and in my experience that's when it's hardest to move to generalities.

John, mieskie wasn't banned. He was suspended. By coming back as Anathema he was eligible to be banned, but he was offered the chance to publically apologize and take a self-imposed hiatus.

Lizard, you feel like talking about it - go ahead. You just saw something like nine people say let it go. But you and John both feel the need to talk about it so let's hear it. Everybody is free to make their points.

I really don't understand why you guys can't see the community value in leaving this alone. Because all I'm seeing is a need to rip the scab off and letting it bleed. However, I haven't heard your points yet so go ahead.

OK general point.

How many Buffistas does it take to close a discussion down?

You say nine people want to stop talking about it, and that's enough?

Lizard says not talking about it is making her upset. Same here, obviously. Shall we gather seven other people who feel it's worth discussing?

Because the people who say "please don't talk about this any more, you're upsetting me" always get the last word, in a way, don't they? Every post after that is seen as contributing to the problem.

And I accept your point about the difference between banning and suspending.

Rebecca, I think it's too soon to talk generalities out of this case. You and John, at least, are still clearly pissed off about the particular case, and in my experience that's when it's hardest to move to generalities.

I... this could be just my own inability to see myself objectively, but I feel actually very firmly that I really don't have truck with the specific ex-poster m/S/A right now. He's just the case study, the history. I don't care about him personally. I want to talk about banning, and how we ought to act when someone is banned, and how we ought to act when someone comes back. I think these issues are important; and I feel very strongly about them; and I think we as a community have no consensus right now. And I think we need discussion, so we can have a policy.

John, mieskie wasn't banned. He was suspended.

My understanding was that since he violated the terms of his suspension, he was banned.

I really don't understand why you guys can't see the community value in leaving this alone.

I heard people-- people whose names I trust, whose opinions carry weight with me-- say things that seemed wrong and, in fact, offensive to me.

This stirred me to want to post.

I want to process it. I want to straighten it out. I don't want to let it fester, and I don't want to wait around until it comes up again.