Someone should open Light Bulbs.

I think you post in Press the proposal, dates/times for the discussion and voting period, and someone opens Light Bulbs.

Also, someone needs to volunteer to count votes.

I can count votes.

And it's your prerogative to have not been offended by that.

It doesn't offend me. It makes me sad. It offends me when people say things like "Bush is a genius" or "Suicide bombers have a point," but I defend their right to say it.

Before I got a clue, I had a whole lot of "gays are squicky" thoughts, too. Occasionally, when my male friends get too graphic, I still squick.

There are obviously a lot of diverse opinions on this board, which is one thing that makes it wonderful. Using one person's PERSONAL opinion that SHE doesn't find gay male sex a turn-on as a key reason to discipline her seems against the spirit of the board as I understand it.

And yes, people who can't stand male-male sex but are okay with two chicks totally piss me off, too. But they don't offend me. Pissing off and offending are two separate things in my book.

What about my obvious smacking around of Zoe? Shouldn't I have been warned? I was flaming her, and I meant to do it. Where be my spanking?

As noted above, yes, I think you should have been spanked.

Perhaps Voting Procedures should go in the FAQ?

smonster, I don't think you're going to get anywhere explaining why people shouldn't be offended at something. I understand what you're saying. I also know that when Zoe posted that series of posts, I was so angry I was shaking.

This is why we're trying to codify this, so it won't depend on one person's interpretation.

I am drafting for Press.

- ms. keepitmoving

But, smonster, my objections weren't about that comment. But were rather about the pattern of behavior. As the objecter on record, I'd like that to be clear. At no time have I commented on the squicky comment because it's almost tertiary to my issues and concerns.

If you want Allyson to be spanked, then by all means ask for an official warning. (not aimed at smonster, but at people in general)

If you want Allyson to be spanked, then by all means ask for an official warning.

Absolutely.

Smonster just said pretty much what I was going to say.

I'm still confused, I don't know how anyone can go back and look through the entire history of Zoe's posts and not see a pattern of inappropriate behaviour.

I'm not talking about annoying serial posting or her maddening way of mistaking the characters for the actors.

I'm talking about how she was rude to people ---BEFORE they ever were rude to her (because that happened to me). I'm talking about her "gay is icky" posts that offended people, stuff like that.

Askye, I respect you and I know that you feel really strongly about this. That's fair enough, and clearly Kat and others felt exactly the same way about the quote marks conversation. Fwiw, though, I'm staring at this and genuinely not seeing it as aggressive. To the point that I'm gobsmacked that it reads that way to you folks. YMMClearlyV. I mean, I went to look at it when it was cited in Kafka, and I was pretty much brimming with irritation and rather wanting to see the trainwreck and all that because I was cross - but I honestly didn't see that conversation as her being randomly rude. I read the initial "Probably" as a defensive and not-particularly-thought-out reaction, and your "Zoe, Let me take another try at this-- " read to me as very much said with gritted teeth, in a speaking-slowly-and-loudly way, which prompted her to get aggressive in response. I got the impression from her response that this was precisely how she interpreted it - that she was being verbally poked with a stick. And, really, she was, wasn't she? Her grasp of punctuation (etc) isn't good, and this is something that drives a lot of us nuts, so she was being poked with a stick - gently, by Jilli, and less gently by you.

If that isn't how you felt at the time, then I apologise unreservedly. That is how I read it, though, so it's open to being misconstrued.

I'm not convinced that she's attacking people without provocation on the basis of what I've read. I just think she doesn't fit in very well.

People being upset IS a problem. But I'm not seeing her trying to provoke people, so if we're going to take action it will be because she doesn't fit in, rather than that she's not trying to fit in. Imho.

(Stuff like the gushy responses posted in Beep Me a while back, before she finally realised that it wasn't a conversation thread, or the way that she often wraps people up in lots of curly parentheses when they've announced something crappy, the constant use of emoticons - these kind of things say to me that she's trying to fit in, but is operating in a painfully inappropriate way.)

...Hell, might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb: I didn't find her "gay sex is icky" stuff wildly offensive either. Dumb, yes. Wrong, also yes. But many (most?) people equate homosexuality (mistakenly) with anal sex, and find the idea of anal sex (wonders whether to interject with 'mistakenly' at this point, as it would shift the tone to wantonly porny. wishes she knew an HTML tag that would elegantly convey a saucy-but-perhaps-inappropriately comehitherish undertone without wrecking the sentence) revolting. This is actually a pretty mainstream view and, you know, it's understandable. (I was shocked and revolted when I heard that a John Thomas was supposed to get shoved into a Lady Jane in order to make babies, since both these rude bits already had thoroughly unromantic functions. Lots of people still have that incredulous "But it's for poo! Yuck!" response to anything erotic relating to bottoms, so I'm not outraged when I happen across it. It's the sort of thing people think when they don't know any better.)

Moreover Zoe didn't make a joke about children being raped, or equate homosexuality with paedophilia. She really didn't. She followed Anathema's quip about the Watcher's Council "Rites of Passage" with an ill-advised remark about the English Public [by which I mean UK Usage] School system which really wouldn't have raised an eyebrow with anyone I know, gay or straight. See Four Weddings and a Funeral, for example, or Stephen Fry's book The Liar or hosts and hosts of other sources for the commonly-held supposition that teenage lads at all-male boarding schools often experiment with shagging other lads.

So, yeah, she's upsetting people. But no, I don't find her beyond the pale myself, and if I don't say so I'll kick myself. Still, the fact that she's upsetting people is the point.

What makes Zoe so much more than the rest of us that she can get away with constant eitquette violations, piss off dozens of people and yet there are those of you who still want the community as whole to bend over backwards and accomodate her for as long as she's around.

Why does she get that kind of consideration and all the people whose enjoyment of Buffistas.org has plummeted because of her are being told to suck it up and deal?

Nothing makes Zoe so much more than the rest of us. My stance is that if she's upsetting people, then the upsetness of people is a problem. Yes. I was not and am not convinced that she's doing it on purpose, and since that's the case I feel obliged to address the assertion that she is. But if we forget about intent and just concentrate on impact, fine. People are upset.

edited slightly for useless repetition.