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.

---

Okay, I’m thinking we’re talking about this again so I’m gonna post what I wanted to say earlier. I am going to preface this by saying: I am not angry. I am not upset. So please keep that in mind when reading.

At that point people were saying things like "OK John, are you satisfied now? Can we stop the witch-hunt?". And now those same people are still blaming me for causing conflict, and feeling sorry for him? That hurts so much.

Yes, back in January, I threw the term “witch hunt” out there. That is how I felt, and still feel, about the situation. I don’t, however, feel sorry for mieskie/Schmoker/Anathema. He did lie to us. He lied to me. Perhaps I should be more outraged by that but, frankly, it’s one of the smallest and least hurtful lies ever told to me online so YOMV.

John, I never doubted that your intentions were good. My issue was with your method. And knowing now what I didn’t know then, I’d still take the same position. Regardless of whether or not mieskie = Schmoker, trying to prove that they were the same person was a bad idea.

Now I know a lot of people didn’t understand my issues and thought I was taking the whole thing too seriously. People didn’t understand why I was so upset and why I had to leave. So here's your backstory:

Once upon a time, I had a private little community that was a Bronze offshoot called The Pool. The idea behind the forum was that everyone was of age and there were no holds barred. We were snarky and crude and uncensored.

The community grew in a weird and odd way and was filled with a strange assortment of people that you’d never think of as friends. But for some reason, it was a special place. People talked, in detail, about things in there that they never talked about anywhere else. Intensely personal and private matters.

There were people on the outside of that forum that took issue with its existence. I had people trying to hack into my UBB to find out what we were talking about. I got threats that they were going to crash the server. There were moles who copied posts and pasted them elsewhere. It was completely insane.

People became very concerned about others reading their posts. They didn’t want these deeply personal things shared with the Bronze community at large. Since it was my board, I felt a certain obligation to prevent that from happening. I tried to prove that people were or weren’t who they claimed to be. I tried to track those who were making attacks against the server. I took the damn board underground and moved it three times.

It was a mistake.

When I look back now, I can honestly say that my heart was in the right place. I was trying to preserve that special little community in any way I could. It was important to me and, even more so, those people were important to me. I felt that they had put their faith in me and I was letting them down.

I destroyed that community. Not the moles. Not the hackers. Me. I had the best of intentions but I was consumed by the idea of not letting these outside forces win. And they won anyway. By the time the dust settled, no one completely trusted anyone. Everyone felt battered and betrayed and disillusioned. It wasn’t a community anymore and those people got what they’d been after.

Online identity is an incredibly hard thing to prove or disprove. There was never any physical evidence that mieskie and Schmoker were the same person. There was a lot of supposition and circumstantial evidence but no hard facts.

So what if we had let it go in January? What if, when someone first brought up the possibility that they were the same person, we had simply said, “We can’t prove it so let’s not go there”?

Then we’d come to the day when a picture appeared. He’d be approached and probably the same thing would have happened. Except that we wouldn’t have had those angry words back in January. Neither of us would have gotten so upset to the point of needing a break and we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.

My problem was never that I didn’t understand where you were coming from, John. My problem was that I understood all too well. And maybe I should have said that better. If you had known the backstory, you might not have felt so attacked. I don’t know. On that particular day, I felt as if you weren’t even reading my posts and I reacted badly.

If I could go back to that first day when I found out we were public enemy #1, I would do it differently. I would never have moved the board. I would never have tried to prove or disprove people. I would have said, “Fuck you. We’re a strong community and we’re not afraid of you.”

Maybe we would have imploded anyway. I just don’t know. But I have a feeling that if I'd taken that stance, I'd feel a lot better about it now.

---