I don't recall the following women stories either. I have been so remote from the actual n.rg that in my head he was still one of the new kids that people were very enthusiastic about. Another sign of my age, I guess.

I know I skipped and skimmed a lot of his stories and watched his success without realizing how much he was trampling all over people and causing such pain.

I am so happy to see old friends returning and I wish that there was some mechanism by which when you are feeling turned off by a thread you've always enjoyed to figure out if is the. Onversatiln ir the. O berserk who is turning you off.

Don't want to lose old friends for new whippersnappers.

OMG, Vortex, I remember that but for some reason I'd compartmented it as not P-C. Yeah, that was weird.

P-C, if you are reading all this, I sincerely suggest that rather than trying to deal with the reaction to your behavior here and across the wider internets on your own, you find a therapist to help you.

(edited because I left out an important part)

At the risk of sounding Secret Police-y, can the Stompies see how many people are Blocking a specific member? I'm just wondering, after hearing about all the people who had P-C blocked, if there's a way for them to go "This person has a whole lot of blocks against him. I should look into what's causing that." But part of me worries that's too Big Brother and potentially puts the Stompies in a very uncomfortable situation.

I know there has to be a table in the database that lists which user ids are blocking what user ids, but AFAIK there is no function for that. Someone with actual access to the database would have to develop a query. That said, I would be very uncomfortable doing this. It's being creepy to stop creepiness from happening, and I don't think that would ever end well. You could just look at how many times a user id is blocked without including the ids of those who did it, but what would you do next? It could just mean that person is merely annoying.

Right. Just my brain casting about for "solutions" to a situation in which there are no easy ones.

P-C, if you are reading all this, I sincerely suggest that rather than trying to deal with the reaction to your behavior here and across the wider internets, you find a therapist to help you.

Agreed. If you are reading: you are a bright, engaging, creative person. Please find someone to help you get to the bottom of what compels you to treat people this way and how to fix it. It won't repair the hurt you've caused, but it will make a difference going forward.

I had an interesting conversation with my 10 year old son this week that came to mind when I was reminded of the watching/following stories (I had forgotten, but now I remember hearing about the one on the cruise ship). Dillo was telling me that there's a girl in his class who likes his best friend S. Which, fine, but at recess she sits on an elevated place in the playground and just watches S. every day. And Dillo, at 10, is able to see clearly that this is creepy (although not entirely age-inappropriate, obviously, because hello, elementary school.)

So my memory failed me a bit upthread. P-C first showed up when Tim announced the cancelation of Wonderfalls, not Firefly, as I thought. Another reason to hate Fox.

I think the idea of block filter monitoring sounds pretty creepy too. I'm all for stompies taking quick action as necessary when people bring specific problems to their attention or they happen across problematic behavior themselves, and resolutions to be more conscious of other posters' discomfort is of the good. But I think people can be abrasive or annoying to some without actually being harmful to the community—that's just the natural clash of different personalities in a group. That kind of nannying situation would do more harm than good.

But I think people can be abrasive or annoying to some without actually being harmful to the community—that's just the natural clash of different personalities in a group. That kind of nannying situation would do more harm than good.

Agreed.

I'm all for stompies taking quick action as necessary when people bring specific problems to their attention or they happen across problematic behavior themselves, and resolutions to be more conscious of other posters' discomfort is of the good. But I think people can be abrasive or annoying to some without actually being harmful to the community—that's just the natural clash of different personalities in a group. That kind of nannying situation would do more harm than good.

I am in total agreement.

Since I've never been a really active poster and have been unfortunately lurky lately, I've been holding back on saying anything, feeling sort of like I'm not enough of a member to get or need a vote. But I realized I don't want to seem to be giving tacit approval by my silence. So I'll chime in.

I was oblivious to issues both in person and in thread with P-C. I don't think I will be more suspicious with people in the future because I am a trusting soul, but I do promise to pay more attention when others speak up.

Laura is me. He never particularly pinged me, and I've been happy for him of late that he's seemed to be coming into his own. To find that he's been "coming into his own" by using and manipulating and harming others (especially others here, in this special place), is troubling to a nauseating degree. I'm so sorry that anyone in this community was harmed, and so sorry that I was so oblivious.

In the past, I've occasionally thought it was odd that he and I weren't closer friends, when other Buffistas I've spent less F2F time with I clicked with really well and feel closer to, but chalked it up to personalities just not meshing well, combined with the famous awkwardness. Now I see it's because I'm not young and hot enough, or connected enough, for him to have bothered. Which, I guess I'm thankful for as it kept me at a distance.

I absolutely support decisions made by the group that will make this a safer place and bring back some people who have really been missed.