Zoe's web page seems to say she's left the Buffistas and is on another forum.

Nah, she's been posting quite a bit in UnAmericans and other threads all the while this discussion's been going on (giving me a taste of what people are saying about the Angel thread). I'm pretty sure she's reading this.

Five e-mails would be enough for the stompies to backchannel among themselves, and consider whether the problem was primarily with poster or the people offended.

What you are describing here is a moderated board, which is not what we have here. This kind of massive structural change to the Buffistas would need to be put to the vote, and would likely be fought tooth and nail. If you think Kafka is ugly now, just wait....

If I were Zoe, I would be pretty intimidated in this forum. (Even after the first few posts about the situation)

Maysa - the first post by Kat was very calm. It was as much of a question on procedure as anything else. The second post was by Jilli, only linking to the incidents in the Angel thread. The third post on the subject was in Zoe's defense, by connie. The fourth was by bitterchick, not sure if a warning was warrented but recognizing a problem. The fifth was by Nutty, correcting what she thought was a mistatement by connie. The sixth was by Victor, pointing the finger (nicely) at people who have objected to Zoe in the past.

Then people started airing their complaints in general.

for reference, it starts at: Kat "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Apr 11, 2003 3:05:10 pm EDT

But there already was taking aside. It's just that it got to the point that someone felt that it should go beyond taking aside. It got to the point that someone, lots of someones including me, thought there needed to be an official response, teeth or no (though I'm in favor of teeth) because the taking aside wasn't working.

I'm also against any kind of backchannel dealings, except on a strictly personal level. If Buffista X has an issue wth Buffitsa Y that for some reason Buffista X doesn't want to bring up in-thread, then s/he should email Buffista Y herself. It's really not fair to the stompies to expect them to be backchannel moderators in addition to everything else they're doing, especially now, while we've got so many technical issues to deal with.

And when a situation gets to the point where people feel official action is warranted, it should be handled here, in the open, where everyone can participate.

Personally, I think this situation was handled very well. We told her what was happening, multiple times and through multiple channels, and only acted officially after it became clear that she wasn't going to respond.

I just checked UnAmerican, and she has posted there within the last few hours. Sorry for my confusion.

Has anyone even had an email from her since this started? I can understand where this would be hard to read ... but I would still respond.

I emailed her the link to the start of the discussion, but have not heard back.

See, I'm thinking of this as being a tactful-taking-person-to-one-side thing, rather than an ominous-behind-the-scenes thing.

I actually agree with the one on one part. I think if the poster has a profile address the individual member being offended should try the approach of personal contact first.

Also, really there is nothing stopping a member from emailing a stompy to mention a concern if they don't want to talk about it here for whatever reason.

Personally, if I was being offended I would contact the individual first and if that didn't help I would bring it here. I can see where many people would not be comfortable doing that.

Ramble time. I think I should eat now!

eta: I also emailed her without response.

What you are describing here is a moderated board, which is not what we have here. This kind of massive structural change to the Buffistas would need to be put to the vote, and would likely be fought tooth and nail. If you think Kafka is ugly now, just wait....

Yeah, I guess it is. And I don't know that I want us to have moderators, which is why I was trying to suggest something that was automatic, in which a protest from or about Jo(e) BrandNewPoster would carry the same weight as a protest from or about Jo(e) PostingSinceTheDawnOfTime, and after X many objections BMP would be notified officially that there was a problem. That way misunderstandings could be sorted out pretty quickly and failure to respond to the official warning (as Scrappy's email was apparently ignored) would be closer to tangible proof that B MP didn't give a damn about having caused distress, and should in fact be regarded as a conscious troll, rather than someone who screwed up.

It's really not fair to the stompies to expect them to be backchannel moderators in addition to everything else they're doing, especially now, while we've got so many technical issues to deal with.

I agree. The thing is, everytime we have a discussion about a problem poster, we start talking about some form of moderation. Which isn't in the Stompies' job descriptions, as far as I can tell.

I think whether or not we get moderators depends quite a bit on what happens with ME/Joss/etc. in the future, to be honest. If there are no ME shows on in the fall, we'll (probably) start shrinking towards a core of people who have been talking for several years, and the question of moderating will be mostly moot. But if Joss creates the biggest hit of the Fall '04 season or ME staffers become regular posters here, we may be dealing with a lot of new people, and the question may become more pressing.

For now, I say we leave it lie, since we've really only had this kind of problem twice. But if it becomes a regular thing, we might need to figure out a moderation policy like the one outlined by Fay just to save our sanity.