you're not entering a tag

Silly me, sorry. I was thinking about that Pretty-Inboard-Link thing that happens once, not dynamically every time.

Pseudoephedrine is Not My Friend.

So all you need is an if-clause in the post-displaying code -- if they're an admin, replace "!STOMP" with the stompy image or whatever.

And this is probably more Building than it is Bureacracy, eh?

It is definitely BBaBB, and that way Am Chau will add it to the list.

Then there was the whole issue of what we use for an image. I had suggested a Monty Python ripoffstyle foot, but some folks thought it should be more a more "serious" image.

And this is probably more Building than it is Bureacracy, eh?

Yeah. Good point.

some folks thought it should be more a more "serious" image

I'm seeing a vision of some kind of stamp, like a circular post-office stamp kind of thing. Rotated a little and placed in the corner.

WHAT I THINK

The following emails are for context:

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:45:09 -0500; From: Wolfram; To: John H.; Subject: You were right

I don't know where else to put this without fanning the flames but you were right. Common courtesy would have been for him to answer your email and then maybe it could have been put to bed. I don't know why all the stompies are dumping on you, especially publicly, but just because a guy keeps his mouth shut and his nose clean doesn't mean he should get away with violating the rules. And when a stompy calls him on it he should be forced to respond or face being banned again. You were right. - Wolf

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:44:56 -0500; From: Wolfram; To: An admin Subject: RE: Mieskie/Schmoker/Anathema

Thanks for the official word. I'd like to share my opinion with you on this matter if that's okay.

M/S/A engaged in ban-worthy behavior way back in December, and was banned. He took advantage of the lax registration to re-join and when accused of being the same person he refused to answer and then lied while at the same time insulting JohnH. Since he denied it and there was no proof, he was allowed to stay, and he slowly learned the ways of the board and where the boundaries are.

Now he got busted and his actions need to be dealt with. On the one hand he can't be allowed to get away with flaunting a ban, lying to the board, and insulting JohnH like he did. On the other hand, he's obviously reformed, he's become a respectful and contributing member, and his presence will be missed.

Obviously the stompies have elected to back-channel this discussion, which makes perfect sense but it does leave some of M/S/A's fellow posters from contributing our thoughts. I personally think he should apologize to the stompies by email, and be suspended for one month. His emails to me following the bustage of been full of contrition and regret, and he has no intention of re-registering or otherwise breaking the rules. Considering his reformation and his current respect for and adherence to the rules, I'd like to see him back again, when he still has time to comment on BtVS and AtS.

John, you were right. Schmoker was Mieskie. You shouldn’t have been dumped on. But what’s done is done, and he’s gone and you’re not. Will you two ever be friends? I doubt it. Should he and other members of this board be permanently deprived of his posts now that he’s shown he can “behave” within the boundaries set? No.

We need to ask ourselves, why do we have the suspension/banning rules in existence? Is it to punish wrongdoing, or is it to force someone to behave within acceptable boundaries on the board? I sincerely hope it’s not the former. If it’s the latter, the purpose has been accomplished.

Personally, I didn’t care for mieskie (he offended me too at one time, look it up) and I always knew that Schmoker was he. But as he acclimated himself I got past it, and I came to appreciate his posts as have many other members. He’s flawed, and fallible, a bit of an asshole, and stubborn as all hell. And I’ve grown to like him. He lied to all of us. Once. He did not continually lie with each post. He did not do this winking thing that he was sticking it to us. He lied to continue posting, and reformed his behavior so as not to get tossed out again. He did the very thing we wanted him to, and now he needs to pay for the lie, and be allowed to rejoin. I think the voluntary and subsequently Stompy enforced suspension is sufficient. I think his suspension should be lifted after one month, and he should be allowed to return provided he keeps within the boundaries and doesn’t disrespect the members. John, I think you want what’s best for the board, I don’t think you want to permanently ban a guy just because he insulted you. If you make this a “him or me” situation it’s not fair to either of you.

A couple of other points. I think the Stompies handled this just right. I think the Stompies should have been given time to craft a post instead being forced to bring this issue out all of a sudden. I think posting this in Press is hurtful, unnecessary and not in line with general Buffista sensibilities. I think that no matter what system is set in place to deal with suspensions/banning this situation could not have been handled any differently, and we would still have these posts agreeing or disagreeing with the results.

I have not been on very many fan boards, but I doubt there are too many online communities as open, inviting, warm and friendly as the Buffistas. I sincerely hope second chances are not anathema.

Well, I started the whip thing and I really was just trying to play off of the idea of the whip in Congress. Also, bitterchick had mentioned earlier about being the whip, with others volunteering to be whips, too. Also, I like Babyface and Whip Appeal is a good song. (weeping softly for those who do not know the power of Babyface)

But really, I'm not wedded to it. I liked Jess' idea too. (Whip it, whip it good) I'd just really like the whip to be involved somehow because whips= pretty/dangerous/porn.

Using whip also works, if indeed the whip's job is to get people lined up to vote (I believe whomever said it was, I just couldn't have crafted the definition myself).

Thanks for that thoughtful post Wolfram. I'm not going to get into it any more though. I think my position is that I remain, as ever, puzzled that everyone doesn't think like me. I'm not angry or upset or sulking or threatening to leave or anything like that, I'm just baffled.

People baffle me, too.

John, I keep trying to find a way to say this so i don't sound snarky, and I'm not sure there is one. But the best I can come up with is that you're reacting very much the way you would if equivalent things happened IRL. Some of us, me included, find it much easier to forgive, forget, and move on in an online situation. I guess the difference to me is that if someone really bothers me here, it's much easier to avoid conflict with them (by scrolling o taking some time off) than it is to avoid someone who lives in your neighborhood or works in your office.

Which is not to invalidate your feelings AT ALL -- I'm just trying to explain mine.