But--why wouldn't an off-site account or "thread," if you like, serve those purposes? Login password could be changed when a concensus was reached, and given only to registered Phoenix users who are interested in a given discussion. It sounds very neat and sequestered to me--

--and is that the problem? That, and I suspect it might be an admin nightmare.

Still, I'd prefer it to locking an onsite thread to all but a select few registered members.

But--why wouldn't an off-site account or "thread," if you like, serve those purposes? Login password could be changed when a concensus was reached, and given only to registered Phoenix users who are interested in a given discussion. It sounds very neat and sequestered to me--

No, you'd have to give the password to every registered Buffista account. Plus you'd have to go off-site to do it. How many people are currently keeping up with the discussion over at WX right now?

we have to devise a response to two lurkers who are threatening the community.

I don't see how someone could do that without registering or posting. Even if someone wanted to, our profiles and email addys aren't visible if you're reading as a guest. Which is a thin wall, but finding our emails elsewhere would be another step someone would have to go through. Finally, I can't see any of us taking discontent-sowing from people we had never heard of all that seriously anyhow.

And if someone does want to register and post for purposes of evil, we have a way to deal with that.

I don't mean to be harsh, DX. I just don't see registration alone as really being any barrier at all to those with evil intent, and I do think it will discourage some people who would want to join the community.

One possibility that would be stronger than registration alone would be registration, plus X posts, to see certain threads. But, again, it's pretty easy to rack up however many innocuous posts are needed. So while it would discourage some blow-in trolls, but it would also effectively keep all lurkers out of those discussions. I'm just throwing it out there as another option.

What about an email account off-site?

We did that with the Safety Page. People could email confidentially, so that they would have an advocate if there was a 'net safety issue.

Some folks aren't afraid of cyber-people, and don't so much mind saying, "I'm aware of what you're doing, pal, and I'm here to push back."

Sadly, a lot of stuff that is happening is common, and the price of the new open-ness.

Just waiting for the poor mother with the dying child to show up for sympathy and money.

I think the advocate email account is a good way of dealing with stuff off board, but then, you all have to decide who has passwords.

We had a lawyer, a nurse, a generally nice person, and a total asshole (me!) for the safety box. Mails were few, but the fact that it was there did help in terms of cyber-molesters, I think. It's existence was a huge sign that read, "Adults are watching, and we'll crush you like a bug if you try to hurt these kids, you fucker."

Sounds like you need a sign like that, but it should read something completely different.

Yup. Okay, I give.

I still have a bad feeling about sealing an existing thread to non-registered users. It wouldn't be effective, simply because our troublemakers, so far, have been registered. And I can't help feeling it adds to the pervasive at-large atmosphere of paranoia if said troublemakers can't be asked to come and discuss their behavior.

In cases like the anonymous bitch lurkers and Cindy's new email pal, I do think backchannel is the best way. I was trying to think of a broader backchannel, is all.

And if someone does want to register for purposes of evil, we have a way to deal with that.

I think that's part of my point. We would then be aware of them to some extent.

I don't see how someone could do that without registering or posting.

They were threatening legal action against the admins and posters on the board because they didn't like what they were reading.

They were threatening legal action against the admins and posters on the board because they didn't like what they were reading.

You'd have to lock all the threads, then, really. Because the show threads go off-topic. And it's mostly Natter, but Natter can lead to more personal stuff.

Besides, you can never tell *what* someone posts that might make an insane lurker decide legal action is necessary.

They were threatening legal action against the admins and posters on the board because they didn't like what they were reading.

On what grounds? Some people threaten legal action if you look at them cross-eyed; doesn't mean you have to take them seriously.

And again, I'm not sure requiring registration would have done Thing One to discourage someone like that.

You'd have to lock all the threads, then, really. Because the show threads go off-topic. And it's mostly Natter, but Natter can lead to more personal stuff.

No, I'm more concerned that we had to handle the response backchannel because we didn't want them seeing the debate on what to do about it.

you can never tell *what* someone posts that might make an insane lurker decide legal action is necessary.

This, too. I mean, someone could post a link to a fan site and say something mildly critical about it, and we could be off to the races if the person who ran the site was a)reading and b)overly sensitive. Threatening legal action is kind of the grown-up equivalent of calling in mommy for certain people.

If it's a question of protecting the board itself, would a statement to the effect of "Buffistas.org is not responsible for what individual posters say" do as much good?