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.

We're gonna need a bigger corner.

This place can seem cliquey at times, but I really can't imagine ten people all at once disliking someone enough to want them banned unless that person was in violation of community standards. We're such a "ask ten Buffistas a question, get 12 different answers" (well, unless it's BtVS trivia) kind of place...I just don't see the risk.

I think what I'm saying is getting really confused. Let me sum up:

1. Some posters, in the vast online world if not, yet, here, are really obnoxious.

2. They can get even more obnoxious if you publicly complain about them or make it otherwise clear you don't like them.

3. Some of us would rather not get involved in the inevitable flame war filing an official complaint about such a poster would lead to.

4. Therefore, I would like for it to be possible for emailed requests for a warning to count as well as requests posted in this discussion.

5. I don't think this is some horrible backchannel thing.

Steph,

So...THAT is acceptable behavior?

Saw it too. Think it's unacceptable behavior. And I'm feeling too beaten down and upset to bring it up. So thank you.

Kat, I'm glad you're back.

Does anyone happen to have the significant discussions about moderation, administration, Stompy Feet, and the differences among the lot bookmarked?

LJ, do you have no problems with the idea of anonymous complaints against you?

Lyra Jane, I totally get what you are saying. I just disagree. Someone's gotta be pretty irritating for me to complain, and given what happened here, I don't know that I'd be eager to do it again. So it's a break on running people out of town, at the very least.

I just don't like anonymous and closed-door complaints. I would complain about decisions made under such cloaked circumstances.

Riffing off ita's question...I'd TOTALLY object to anonymous complaints about me. My first question would be, "Who said it?" Not to get them, but because I need to know.

In Willow's words (paraphrased) a veiled threat is no one's friend.