I don't see much of an opening to change the rules -- but that's because I can't think of any better ones. I don't want power shifted, and I don't think we can outline enough scenarious without leaving our knickers showing somewhere else.

This is how I feel.

OK, so I just googled myself, and have a request: Can my last name come out of the FAQ? Thx.

I fixed the old Geocities FAQ. Jon or ita need to to the Phoenix FAQ.

FWIW, sometimes a hypothetical question is exactly the means I use to recast a situation and get a handle on what bothered me/didn't bother me/where I draw the line. I'm sorry if my hypothetical comes in the middle of a lot of others, but it was a small thought that I didn't see that anybody else had posed, and it showed me an important distinction in the overall wrongness of m/S/A's conduct.

Thanks, DX.

I see no problem with playing with hypothetical situations. It helps us know what is/is not worth worrying about, and be mentally ready in case we do get an idjit posting on the board. I think that as a community, we were not ready for the reality of a shit-disturber turning up in our midst.

I don't think we can outline enough scenarious without leaving our knickers showing somewhere else.

True. It would be sheer madness to think we could come up with a plan for every possibility.

I do think that reminding ourselves how to behave properly in the face of improper behavior is a good policy. Basically, I think that when someone says something that is hurtful or angering, 9 times out of 10, on-board Doblerization solves the problem.

Will people think I'm losing it if I want to say one last thing about the m/s/a issue?

Yes! Why are we (not just John) all so obsessed with being right about this? Some people feel one way, and some people feel another way, and the twain may never meet. Moreover, what kind of silly people are we to try and convince each other with logic to feel a different way?

I think more than one person herein the past 14 hours has flirted with being insulting to other people's feelings, on several sides of the issue, and that makes me sad and angry. I'm very pleased it's gotten back to "how I feel" and "why I did X" in the past 30-40 posts.

Feelings is feelings, and trying to argue with feelings is like trying to beat someone to death with a feather. Diplomacy is acknowledging and stating your feelings without wielding the violent feather.

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.

With Victor on this. When we've all had a good cry and a good nap, can we convene for a Stompy Foot Duties caucus? Say, next Monday or something?

Can't we go back to talking about Nutty's bras again?

Yes! Today I am wearing something by Bali, which is incredibly old and ratty. If you'll turn to the Natter thread, we can begin a discussion about the vagaries of bra design during the course of the hormone cycle.

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.

With Victor on this. When we've all had a good cry and a good nap, can we convene for a Stompy Foot Duties caucus? Say, next Monday or something?

I'm all for discussing this issue in a calmer frame of mind. I'd hate to put in a whole bunch of silly rules and regs, and get caught up in a storm of paranoia and 'what ifs.' I think the true benefit from such a discussion is that it would make us each think about how we'd behave when faced with a troll.

If this teeny not-quite-a-troll can cause this much damage, what happens if a real troll shows up? Can we be prepared? Is there anything we can do without damaging the community?

To me, these are two very different types of poster. Real trolls aren't a threat to community Zen, because they manage to build a great consensus against themselves.

This type is different. This type is disruptive because s/he can carry on a decent on-topic conversation when s/he chooses, doesn't *exactly* flame, just breeds dissent, blames others when s/he's called on problematic behavior, yet still manages to ingratiate himself into the sympathies of our more compassionate members.

Why are we (not just John) all so obsessed with being right about this?

Because we see this board as a safe haven. We'd like to share it with others who belong here, and keep out those who'd disrupt or destroy it. And if we make any mistakes on these calls, someone(s) will get hurt.

I'm all for discussing this issue in a calmer frame of mind.

Wrod. Count me in for waiting a few days to discuss general rules re the treatment of trolls. Monday sounds good to me. (But I'm one of the less frequent posters in this thread, so feel free to ignore me on this.)

I'm all for the TWoP way of dealing with trolls.

It's in the week long, 500 post discussion about whether or not a person who calls all of us a bunch of elitist cuntbags and then apologizes, fits for a day, and then calls one of us a rusty douchebag, apologizes, blames it on medication, is okay for three days, makes two friends who are unaware of the problem, and then repeats the problem, that the real damage occurrs.

"Perhaps we can TRAIN the troll!"

"He makes good points in the Angel thread when he's not calling us douchebags!"

You can't train a troll. This is how a troll operates. They make a few friends, and make a few enemies, and toe the line until people are driven crazy.

THAT's the kind of troll that destroys.