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.

For the record, four Buffistas specifically said they wanted the discussion closed down. Not nine. I discounted things like Dana's "I'll cry if it will help"...

I agree with David in this, but I'd also rather people just said what they had to say instead of clogging up the board with endless "I have something to say but you guys don't want me to so I'm gonna keep saying that I have something to say until you let me" posts.

If you're gonna say it, say it.

If you're not, don't.

And then, when everyone has said their piece, we can all practice the fine art of LETTING GO.

Wrod, Jess.

I have something to say but you guys don't want me to so I'm gonna keep saying that I have something to say until you let me

I don't think that's a fair summation -- we've been told to move from the specific to the general. How are we to do that without appearing less direct?