Against anonymous complaints especially those made backchannel. In my world, anonymity is used in cases of actual danger and those cases only.

Cannot say it more strongly than that.

I don't think airing complaints here is a good idea. I think it leads to pile-ons. I think there should be a separate e-mail address for such complaints to go to. Otherwise, I find the stepped process a fine one.

But Michele, we're not a moderated board, on purpose. It's community rule here, as a rule. How does emailing stompies privately accomplish anything. They don't want to decide for us, and for the most part, most of us don't want them to decide for us, either.

There are people who do this that are Buffistas? Because that is harassment, yo.

I'm talking about someone at another forum. But it's not like there are no other jerks on the internet.

if it looked like a group of people with a grudge against 1 person were trying to force someone out that the admins would allow that?

Askye, no -- I was responding to this post from bitterchick:

This bothers me. If the community isn't discussing the matter, how does a Stompy get a consenus that there is an issue? Why should they have to decide if the email raises a valid issue or is just someone trying to stick it to a poster they don't like?

but rule-by-clique could happen just as easily with posts here as with emails.

I don't think that's true at all. There's a pretty diverse group of people who post in here regularly, and we all know that everyone has to have their say.

Here's a thought: instead of a number, how about a preponderance of posters over a certain period of time, say 24 hours. Maybe with a minumum of 10 or something. So Buffista A makes a request for a warning or whatever, everyone can say their piece, and then we see where we are. It seems to me that anytime there's a big discussion like this, the person in question will have defenders, and that's great. I just don't want that to paralyze us.

~Mwah~

Thanks msbelle. I'm already in the corner with you and Jesse and Jessica and Nutty and many many others.

Huh? No. No one here is.

Now I'm confused. Was the original post about possible harassment that hasn't happened, here?

I'd like to address the issue of Zoe, specifically. This is a post made this morning in the Angel thread: Zoe Ann "Angel 2: No Time for Losers" Apr 14, 2003 10:08:45 am EDT

where she said this:

"and by "vengeful zealots" I he means Buffista's."

I did post after that, asking her to please clarify it, because it sure sounds (to *me*) like she's calling us vengeful zealots.

So...THAT is acceptable behavior?

It's really not. It's rude to the ENTIRE community. I didn't flame her about it, and I didn't even argue with her -- I asked for clarification, because apparently we are to give the rude people the benefit of the doubt.

I agree with askye, msbelle, Jesse (I think), and others who say that WHY did we spend a great great great deal of time working out community standards if *now* we're going to make excuses for the people who willfully violate them repeatedly?

Lyra, sorry shit went down on another forum but there's enough confusing stuff going on right now, the way your post was phrased I seriously thought that someone here on the board was harassing you or had been harassing you.

No, but there are people who will insult you whenever you enter a conversation, send you nasty emails, and generally make it no fun for you to be part of a community.

There are? This is troubling.

LJ, the situation you describe would get the poster banned anyway. Isn't that the point?

I want to be able to look the accuser in their eye. I want to be able to explain that FUCKO is a term of endearment, and to apologise for the confusion. I do NOT want to suddenly receive a warning from the stompies telling me I've been bad.