It was early on in Angel 2 I think. I would say Threadsuck Angel 2 and search under Zoe's name but that could be tedious.

First 1000 posts, you think?

It was in Angel while the show was on hiatus. Maybe mid-Feb.?

I'd REALLY rather not drag this one out again. Allyson's post bothered me a lot more than Zoe's, as cruelty bothers me more than stupidity -- but I was reading a few hours later and without the perspective of being gay/bi, so maybe I can't really understand this one.

The particular conversation starts around connie neil "Angel 2: No Time for Losers" Feb 19, 2003 1:20:20 pm EST, but you might want to go back a little further for the grammar/spelling debate that already had people edgy, starting around Zoe Finch "Angel 2: No Time for Losers" Feb 19, 2003 8:30:21 am EST.

edit: and then continues at Allyson "Angel 2: No Time for Losers" Feb 19, 2003 7:26:54 pm EST.

(And, sorry if this is dragging up old stuff again, but I figure it's better to have actual posts to refer to than just summaries of 1000-post discussions.)

Let's also keep in mind that Allyson apologised (to offended other Buffistas, though self-admittedly not to Zoe) for that post.

Okay, I reread, and a)I was remembering Allyson's comments as worse than they were and b)I was around during that conversation, so I'm mistaken about reading it later.

This is why I should not comment on things that happened more than five minutes ago without finding the original posts.

Allyson was called on the post and apologized for it. Nobody here is saying Allyson was right to do it (even if some readers understood and agreed with her reason for doing it), and it clearly didn't resolve the situation anyway.

There's no reason to bring it up again, Paul.

Jesus! What is the angst about having moderators? We have rules. We have people empowered to enforce those rules. Guess what? That's moderation.

It's all very well and good to say that every person in the group is as empowered as every other person in the group in the decision-making process. But, (a) that's already clearly untrue, as certain people have been trusted with technical responsibilities and, yes, moderation roles, and (b) you can all be empowered and not sit around and nitpick through every decision, if you're channeling concerns/complaints/questions to the people you have already empowered to act on your behalf.

We have already recognized that a consensus approach to major community-development questions does not work with the growth of the board. Why are we struggling to keep a consensus method on the far trickier set of interpersonal/community relations questions for which, I might add, we already have rules??

Michelle, I'll just speak for myself. The problem with having moderators is that it requires, well, moderators and as far as I know, not many of us are interested in being unpaid moderators of a board as busy as this one. Last I heard, the stompies seem to NOT want the job. Couple that with the fact that many of us feel strongly about *who* among us would get to be moderators, so there's some chance that those who are willing to do it will be rejected by those who are going to be moderated. Seems kinda messy.

The existing system may count as moderation (I disagree), but as a putative moderator, all I can say is that what's described feels very different from what I feel expected to do currently, and that distinction is quantum.