A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura
Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina
I don't think changing the name would really clear anything up. I mean, we've tried to stay *out* of the spotlight more than shine a light on anything.
Plus it's icky precedent to me to change anyone's pseud without their express wishes. We're a public site.
Plus it's icky precedent to me to change anyone's pseud without their express wishes. We're a public site.
I'm not sure yet what I think of the idea of indicating on-board that Gus was a fake (I see massive pros and cons), but if we were to do so, I would rather not see it done via changing the pseud. A clearly labeled Stompy Note in the tagline or in the profile would be the way I would like to see that done if we go that route. If we alter Gus's words or self-representation, it needs to be clear where, how, and why it was done.
I don't think an entry in the FAQ would be out of line, but the thought of actually writing it gives me preferential voting flashbacks.
I'm against changing anything. Just let it stand. It's part of our history. Just about every long lived online community has a pseudicide at some point, and a few instances of trolls being pushed away.
Let it Stand As Set.
Not removing the entries means less work for me, and as you know, Bob, I'm in favor of most activities that require me to do nothing.
Pardon my ignorance, but what's all the hubbub about? I don't want to Natter in an unNattery thread, so just point me toward where drama apparently went down.
I'm with Hec. No changes necessary.
I'm seriously against any asterisks, stompy tags, or messing with the actual post record. The FAQ, otoh, is an excellent plan.
Thomas, the drama was on New Year's Eve, 2006 in Bureau, I think. But there have been some recent press mentions that have mostly been discussed in Natter over the last month, maybe.
I'm against revisionist history in principle - I'd say leave the quotes and the attribution as they stand.