I think you can do that without being mindcontrolled too, you know.

Yeah. I am feeling the stupid right now. I'm sorry, Allyson?

---

The summary:

ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD
Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?
Yes

ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION
Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?
Yes

ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT
How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count?
42
Do votes of "no preference" count toward this?
Yes

ITEM 4: SECONDS
a) Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote?
Yes

b) Please choose a minimum number of people who have to agree with the original proposer before a proposal moves to formal discussion, if the above item passes.
4

ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD

Yes

53 61.6%   No 33 38.4%   No Preference 8     Total Votes with preference 86     ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION Yes 50 57.5%   No 37 42.5%   No Preference 7     Total Votes with preference 87     ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Mean 42 3961/94 Median 42 The middle number Mode 50 Favored by 24 voters Do votes of "no preference" count toward this? Yes 72 78.3%   No 20 21.7%   No Preference 2     Total Votes with preference 92     ITEM 4: SECONDS Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote? Yes 78 86.7%   No 12 13.3%   No Preference 4     Total Votes with preference 90     Minimum number of people who have to agree with the original proposer before a proposal moves to formal discussion, if the above item passes.   Mean 4 369/94 Median 4 The middle choice Mode 5 Favored by 27 voters

Raw numbers for minimum number of Buffistas:

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 15, 15, 15, 18, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 35, 35, 40, 40, 40, 40, 40, 40, 40, 42, 45, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 51, 51, 60, 60, 60, 65, 65, 65, 65, 67, 67, 75, 77, 80, 80, 90, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100
Raw numbers for numbers of seconds:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10

---

That's not so. He would've been allowed the option to stay.

Well, maybe. In all honesty, I'd say he took the decision away from us by stepping away. On the one hand, he did us all a favor by not having to sort it out any further. On the other, we're left with very little precedent to work from should it happen again. But such is life.

As the guy who eventually flipped the switch on Anathema, I did so because A.) He had a two month suspension that had never been served, and B.) From his e-mails with the Admins as a group and with myself individually, he felt it was best to walk away completely. Those were the only two factors that made me feel justified in closing his account.

That being said, while we were discussing the best way to handle it, I don't feel we could have taken any serious action without bringing it to the board's attention. I do think that we made the right decision approaching him directly, and seeking his input as to what we should do, but I'm not sure we would have been able to do anything major--such as permanent banning or wiping away the suspension entirely--without discussion here. Anathema gave us an out to deal with it beforehand, and for that I'm grateful, but in the big picture, I'm not quite sure how to deal with it next time.

I don't really have any interest in dealing with the personality of Anathema's situation. I have a great deal of interest in discussing the procedure, because while I can say without a doubt that we handled the situation as best we could, I'd like to not have to be left in the same gray zone again.

---

Thank you very much, Laura.

And now I actually go to bed.

lizardfoot>>>>>><<<<<<<lizardmouth

---

I find the harmonic beauty of "42" breathtaking.

Ain't it just a kick in the pants?

---

Heh, I had to post that 3 times to get the last 10 in. Now to fix Press!

---

Yeah. I am feeling the stupid right now. I'm sorry, Allyson?

Quite alright.

---

Thank you for the beautiful tally, Laura!

I agree with Wolfram upthread about the difficulty those of us who read on a different schedule feeling like we can't post because people have asked that it stop, or that it is upsetting them. Also the power of those who are upset to divert conversations can drive me batshit due to my own issues.

But, I'm learning the hard way that when people say, "Stop talking about this" chances are they aren't particularly open to hearing my side of it and perhaps it's best if I do stop talking. Not that I heed this that often. As shown here.

• ************************

With regard to what has happened here tonight:

(1) John, it's obvious you still feel a lot of pain and anger and frustation over what happened and I'm sorry that all of the events have hit you so hard emotionally. While lots of us care about you, feeling an affinity to m/A is not a repudiation of our feelings about you. Some people will continue to think of him as a friend and I think that's normal and just and whatever. You may not understand why, but it's not up to you to decide.

(2) People were upset with you in January not because they were picking mieske over you. I didn't comment at the time, but I think I felt upset because it felt like you crossed the boundary of what is socially okay. Just as Allyson doesn't get to thrash me whenever she feels like it, if she does and I thrash back or if I cross a socially acceptable barrier back due to her behavior, then I should expect to be shot down. I think we have higher standards for our friends and it hurts more when they do something strange or offputting. Also, I think when our friends slap our knuckles, the sting of the disapproval is worse.

(3) Rebecca, I'm not sure what the confluence of events that caused you to post about mieske's suspension were. Maybe it was just a weird cosmic convergence, but it came across like you were spoiling for whatever you knew to be made public knowledge so that *this* could happen (I'm not really sure what *this* is). That sort of behavior is really disquieting to me.

• *******************

42... henh. Well. That's interesting. And Burrell was right. Whatever comes up for a vote gets approved. I wonder if that will continue to hold true?

---

I shouldn't be posting this, because it's (guess what) 6:00 AM here right now, and if I'm awake it's because I'm supposed to be working on something else, but since I was one of the people who used the word "witch-hunt", I thought I'd had to respond:

Let's remember, first of all, the atmosphere of this board in the weeks before (and during) the mieske incidents. People were worried about the newbie influx; people were eyeing newbies suspiciously; people were afraid of the new posters. After mieske started making people uncomfortable, there were even people who accused Deena (who was a newbie back then) of being a sock-puppet, for committing the cardinal sin of engaging mieske in a conversation.

Now, add to this atmosphere a series of accusations against a newbie, based on nothing else than circunstantial evidences that are all but impossible to prove, and how would you call the result?

After doing some self-examination, I think that if John's accusations had been something isolated, I probably wouldn't have used the word "witch-hunt". But you have to put things into context, and within the context that I have described above, I'd use the term again if it happened today (let me repeat: when someone as respected and beloved around here as Deena is accused of being a sock-puppet, you know that you've gone too far).

I didn't know John personally and still don't. The only impression I had of him is that he is a well-respected and liked member of this community, which is why it was more shocking to me to see him behaving the way he did. I didn't want to see him go, and I felt sorry when he announced so.

(Incidentally, I think that it was recently discovered that the Rosenbergs were indeed spying for the soviets, wasn't it?)

---

And Burrell was right. Whatever comes up for a vote gets approved. I wonder if that will continue to hold true?

Heh. I was going to note it myself, but I see that Kat has noted it for me. That said, I do like the number 42.

And just FTR, as one of the folks who recommended not discussing the banning issue further, I should note that it was only a recommendation, nothing more. Not an insistent THIS CONVERSATION MUST END NOW. I said it because, when IRL I notice that when I have begun shifting into biting-my-own-tail-off mode, meaningful input lessens, anger heightens, and frustration and ill-feelings go through the roof. So that's when I take a moment, and when I tend to recommend the same for others. But I agree that, if you personally WANT to continue the conversation, you should.

I think there was only one instance where I really wanted the conversation to end because it had just moved into my *personal* pain zone, and that was a long forgotten discussion about IVF vs adoption. And I prefaced my comments at the time by saying that my issues were about *me* as was my request. But that's not my general mode here.

---