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?

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

No Buffista may shut down a discussion except while acting in an official stompy capacity. If you think that nine people are wrong to suggest the discussion be stopped, you have the right to push it forward.

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

That is not what happened.

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?

You can spend your social capital anyway you want. I splurged and pissed some of mine away derailing conversations about cats and dieting. It wasn't a shining moment in my career as a Buffista. But I had enough in the bank. You've both got enough in the bank to make your stand here.

But let me tell you John, as your friend, as somebody that likes and respects you - it looks bad. It looks self-righteous, it looks like you want the last word, it looks graceless. He's gone. You want to hammer some principle home for all of us to understand - but I'm telling you now that is not going to happen. People do not perceive the situation the way you did. I would guess the majority of people saw Anathema as probably mieskie, and also seeing him as somebody actively engaged with and enjoying the discussion. Not somebody smirking up his sleeves and dicking us over. I don't know the truth in the matter and I don't care anymore because he's gone. But you are not going to sway people on this one.

I heard what askye said. I understand that perspective and how manipualtive and shitty mieskie was to do that. And he's gone.

Anything more polarizes people, and generates ill will and side-taking. I guarantee there will be no air clearing.

That's me speaking to you personally. It's a bad idea to drag this out. It really is.

OK then.

t edit several xpost

What I had wanted to say, and wrote earlier this afternoon, in reply to other posters:

It's snide, and it's childish, and it's every bit as cliquey and exclusive as we've been accused of being.

Without sin. First stone.

With greatest respect for your right to hold an opinion, PMM: I really don't think so.

The day I am *banned* from being a member of this community? I will take my dignity *out* the door. I will not skulk around under an assumed name; and I will not hint and tease people about me being someone *they had already banned*, and I will not have to be banned twice. (Although that is not exactly what happened, I know; he left of his own free will. But, in effect, he left to preempt banning.)

Don't try to tell me I have mieskie/Schmoker/Anathema's "sins".

I mean? I'm not trying to say I am perfect. In fact, I'm pretty damn flawed. Within recent memory I'm sure I've angered people with something I said; within slightly-less-recent memory I slipped up bad and treated one thread like backchannel, in a bad way, was gently reprimanded by ita, and-- *apologized and deleted my post*. I haven't done it again since, and I hope I won't ever again. I didn't blow up and scream at ita or make snide remarks about how stuffy and stupid you all were.

This is why *I have never been banned*.

So don't *dare* tell me I'm just like m/S/A. I have not done what he did.

I'll say it again---if he really respected this community, if he really wanted to be a part of our community, he would have accept his suspension and waited out the two months and then come back.

Wrod, askye. Connie, you say:

What did he get away with? End-running some rules but at the same time creating a niche of his own where he was becoming accepted.

-- but he didn't NEED to do that! He could have just accepted the terms of his suspension and waited the two damn months. Failing that, he could have used the new persona and not dropped any damn hints. Because? End-running some-- very important-- rules? I don't want to *live* in a community where that's an OK thing to do.

FTR, this is a board, not a chatroom, and if someone who reads these posts hours later needs to say something let them say their piece. It can be more distressing in the long run for the unsayer to let a thing remain unsaid, then for the reader to have to read another post on the unpleasant subject.

That being said, I wholly and unequivocally reserve the right to comment on this situation at some point in the near future. To bed go I.