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.

So Fay, considering that scrappy's (and I hate to keep using her name since I may be misremembering who said they sent e-mails) e-mail and in thread requests went ignored, do you think that she does give a damn about having caused distress?

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 hold our noses and figure out a moderation policy like the one outlined by Fay, if only to save our own sanity.

Shit.

See, I'm not trying to bring on moderators. If we've got an inbuilt system where the community can issue an official notice that there's a problem via a stompy (which we have?), I thought what I was suggesting just made it that much cleaner & quicker, and with less moderaty decision-making on the part of the stompy.

If I'm suggesting making us into a moderated forum, I may have to go back and delete my posts. (Not that I would, because that's frustrating as hell for people, I know, but - shit.)

Undo it! Undo it!

Just to clear things up--I didn't email her privately. I posted my long message to her on (I think) UnAmerican. I considered sending it to her personally but it was a friendly suggestion rather than a warning, so I thought it would be best to do it publicly.

Heather, although I'm inclined to agree with you, I think we don't have to decide whether she gives a damn, or isn't capable of facing it, or anything else. That seems to be what opened up the speculation about her personal life. The issue for us (imo) is that she was involved in a kerfluffle, was called on it (more than once) and didn't respond. Now she's been given a polite notice. I don't expect her (at this point) to respond. I do think we have a right to not to have the same problem again.

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.

I had read through them before but I looked at them again and you're right--things didn't get daunting until a little later.

Am I correct in thinking people have e-mailed privately? Not that it really changes my stance, but I do like to have my facts straight.