About blocking users: I don't know how the Beta does it, but I'd bet that they simply blocked people by username instead of IP address, which means that an hypothetical troll would have needed just to start posting as "lloyd12MD" to circumvent it. Until he gets caught by the admins, of course, who would then proceed to ban that username too. And so on, ad infinitum.

Basically, there's no reliable way to uniquely identify a person who gets on the net. "On cyberspace, nobody knows you're a dog" and all that stuff.

I thought we were talking about this on Monday?? Does nobody obey Nutty the All-Powerful?!?

I'd sign on to the Nutty the All-Powerful charter.

The problem that I have with the moderator suggestion (aside from what others have already mentioned) is that I feel it’s somewhat premature. We had one problem poster and we handled it in a less than smooth fashion. So, okay, Method A didn’t work. But, with the moderating proposal, I feel like we just skipped to Method E without even considering Methods B, C or D.

Part of why I think the m/S/A situation was so difficult is that it was the first one. There was no existing policy for us to refer to when dealing with him. We had to feel our way through it. In retrospect, I know there are things I wish we’d done differently (like, making mieskie aware of this thread and that he was being discussed).

What if, before going to the moderator option, we tried to create a policy for handling problem posters? I’m not saying it’s going to be the solution but I feel like we need to make the effort before we start talking about empowering posters to be watchdogs.

Just wanted to repost bitterchick's comments since I agree.

The Stompys do already just step in and stomp posts which are spoilery, or inadvertently spilling real life details on the boards that should be kept confidential.

I think we need to discuss the range of Stompy powers and responsibilities before we get into the idea of moderators. Also, the filter will ease things.

It would be a huge change in Buffista culture even to have a rotating crew of moderators. I know we're missing some of the anarcho/libertarians from this discussion at the moment but I'm pretty sure they'd hate this idea.

I don't things are working all that poorly right now. Things could be done better, and it's important to have an idea in place before we have to deal with either a Troll or a long-time member going Reaver on us. But we did have a long talk about board discipline before we came to Phoenix which is why we had something in place to deal with mieskie.

"Oh, David's proposing a Whoopee thread in Monkey Junta again !"

How do I get this reputation? monkeymonkeymonkeychimpyapeorangmonkey!

Yes. Let us implement the results of voting, that we may vote again, soon and often!

Voteworthy Discussion: No Big Whoop (?)

tag: A thread open only to discuss proposals on the floor for voting. If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!

Blurb: We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy. (Which we voted on!)

Okay, that's a wild stab. Any corrections/suggestions welcome.

We have a policy that no one feels empowered to enforce, is what it seems to me is the problem.

I don't think the problem was that we didn't feel empowered to enforce the policy when mieskie first came on the board. I don't remember a single negative word about JoeAverage being stomped, and there were only a couple of folks speaking in favor of mieskie when he was originally stomped. We did identify at that time that there were things we could have done better with in the situation - sending the warning by e-mail, making sure the person warned knew it was official, telling the person that it was being discussed in Bureaucracy.

I think the real problem was when he came back, and we had no sure way to prove that it was the same person. A good number of people were sure it was him, another group was just a vehement that it wasn't him, another group said what does it matter, he's changed anyway, and another group went into hiding.

There really is nothing you can do about that situation. We have set the burden of proof for identifying an imposter very, very high. If the guy wants to post badly enough, he will. You can ban everyone from the guys e-mail domain, but what if he uses Hotmail? You can try to block the IP address, but that runs the risk of blocking innocents. Back when they were working together, it would have been impossible to block Darth and not block Cybervixen.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having the original policy enforced by the stompies, as long as the specific formats of e-mails and warnings are worked out. OTOH, I'm not sure there's any way to devise a plan of action ahead of time for what to do when a suspected imposter arrives, and tries to fit in. If an imposter repeats the same behavior as before, you just stomp him the same as before, but if he's not misbehaving, and you have no direct proof it's him, what CAN you do? Fortunately, I think it will be a rare event.

I think that's lovely, Nutty.

RE titles - didn't Xander and Cordelia have a conversation about democracy once, with Cordelia anti?

Yet again, I don't think we've demonstrated the need for a heavyweight solution. I prefer having the Stompies continue as constituted. I do like the addition of officially telling the stomp-nominee to come to Bureaucracy and discuss the behavior.

Katie, I remember it being about diplomacy. Something like, "What, not saying something that's true? I'll pass."

Something like, "What, not saying something that's true? I'll pass."

Wasn't that tact?

I think that's tact, no?

Yeah, that's tact. No, I'm thinking about something in S3, where Cordelia was all "Buffy's got Slayer Power, so why doesn't she get to make the rules?" I went looking in the transcripts, but no luck.