smonster, I think the point Steph is trying to make -- well, I'm trying to, as well -- is that the 1st amendment abjures restriction of the freedom of speech only by Congress. We are not Congress; we are a private entity; so within reason, we can make whatever speech rules we like.

1st amendment is stretch a lot of the time to mean things it really sort of doesn't.

Can we move forward and talk about procedure?

Zoe's already gotten a notice. If anything happens again (going forward) I'm sure there will be complaints here, and they'll be resolved in thread or in bureaucracy, (like Steph's question about the zealot thing was resolved when someone pointed out it was a riff on Matt's Angel recap) or Zoe (or any other offender) will be warned.

smonster: I don't think the problem with Zoe expressing her opinion that time was so much with the opinion (i.e. "This isn't a turn on for me") but rather it was that it was expressed in a manner which felt demeaning of anyone who didn't share the opinion.

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

I know this was more hypothetical than not. However, can I say, whether this had been Allyson or any other poster, I think an offense has a shelf-life.

If you're going to bring it up to show there's a pattern of behavior when we're questioning whether small offenses are deserving of discipline, that's one thing. I don't think we get to bitch a month after the fact, that someone said a bad thing.

When an offense is fresh, bring it up. If it only bothered you after you stewed on it for a month, let it die.

I have realised that I have been reading the CS (regardless of the words, this is just me projecting onto them) as saying "We want you to behave respectfully of us as individuals and as a community."

That's what I take it to mean, also.

And I think that Zoe's pattern on posting is not respectful of the community, up to and including today's post that likens us to vengeful zealots.

I see no respect there.

ita's version of Community Standards is kinda how I see it.

Someone a ways back said to those of us who were asking for warnings against Zoe "Do unto others" I'm not sure who that was.

Well, if Zoe's been treating us like she wants to be treated then she doesn't want to be treated very well.

I'm not saying that because I think we should all run out and be rude to her. Just, hold her up to that same standard.

(like Steph's question about the zealot thing was resolved when someone pointed out it was a riff on Matt's Angel recap)

Excuse me. I *don't* think it was resolved. She called the Buffistas vengeful zealots. Just because she took it from Matt's recap doesn't mean it was acceptable.

I could take things from Matt's recap and then use them to make an unflattering comparison to HER. Would that be okay, just because it was taken from Matt's recap, or any other post?

Can we move forward and talk about procedure?

That's what msbelle's forthcoming proposal is about. I think it's moot to talk about it before it becomes officially open.

And I think that Zoe's pattern on posting is not respectful of the community, up to and including today's post that likens us to vengeful zealots.

Steph, the thread has been very busy which is the only reason I'm asking the following: Did you see a page or two back, where someone pointed out "vengeful zealots" was a phrase Matt had used in his recap. I think it's possible she was making a joke.

Cindy, I did see that. And I knew in the Angel thread that she was quoting from Matt's recap. I just don't think that it's an excuse for her rudeness. I don't think it was a joke.

And I don't mind you asking me if I saw that post, because this thread certainly has been busy. That was nice of you to think of that. Thanks.

Excuse me. I *don't* think it was resolved. She called the Buffistas vengeful zealots. Just because she took it from Matt's recap doesn't mean it was acceptable.

Sorry, Steph, I wasn't sure if you had seen it. I understand if it's not resolved for you. That comment was made when I thought it was. Sorry for the confusion.

edited to add context to the above, because Teppy and I are suddenly playing two steps forward, one back, to catch up to each other.

and to add - cool.

Somebody. Come. Turn. Off. My. Computer. (amyth, you are closest!)

I was hugging the first amendment not because it necessarily applies here, but because of the philosophy it represents.

Allow me to reiterate. I don't know how to make myself clearer, so I should probably stop, but it feels like people aren't understanding me. I guess they just don't agree.

If someone on this board says, "Hey, I think whips and chains are cool!"

I think they should be allowed to say that.

If someone says, "The idea of whips and chains totally freaks me out."

I think they should be allowed to say that, too.

If someone says, "Everyone who uses whips and chains in sexual acts is clearly lacking in morality and is going to hell"

That is offensive, and justifies disciplinary action, especially on a board where lots of people buy handcuffs in bulk.

The first two express personal preferences. The third is a moral judgment. I don't judge others' preferences and I expect them to respect mine.

FWIW, I didn't see any of the whole Christianity debate, so I have no idea what the hell that's all about. If someone wants to send me a link, grand.

Arrgh.