I have to say, whenever I've used email--and it's been a personal email to a stompie's own account, response has been swift, even if said response was just "we know, we're on it."
I know it's more of a hassle, but I still think backchannel is the way to go if a discussion needs to be not-public. If the admins don't want to handle things without a discussion, then we need an offsite account to discuss. But I don't think the login should be available to anyone who a)isn't registered here, and b)doesn't ask for it.
If that's exclusionary, so be it. I think the overwhelming majority of posters don't concern themselves with the nuts and bolts of board maintenance, either mechanical or ethical. And if they choose not to participate, there's no reason to disseminate a login/password. Those who are motivated to take part can apply for login. Is there a non-admin-intensive way to do that?
I'm with Jon, and I don't think it's elitist to say so. At the time, and still, it seemed like an administrative matter. We got email that was obviously an empty threat, we doublechecked with a couple of Buffista-lawyers to make sure it was, and we told the threateners to stuff it. It was as clear a matter of applying the existing don't-be-a-demon policy as the sporking of christiandollarstore.
OK-- this doesn't have much to do with the vote, but I think it is generally unclear whether or not you can e-mail the stompies with some sort of complaint. From the prior procedural vote, it is clear that official action is taken in thread and in Bureacracy and you need to complain in the open about it.
However-- what to do in the case of a complaint about something that is occuring via email (harrassing of posters) or if someone does use "email an admin" to complain about a problem poster.
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.
Really? If we'd had a locked thread, I'd have not wanted to bring it frontchannel because it was primarily the business of the poster involved. Frankly, I could have made my case in front of the complainants (well, perhaps using different words) -- it was only the response-crafting that was not board-suitable, and that's more because I think response crafting
isn't
board-suitable, and has less to do with the specifics of the letter.
I'm of the opinion that locking the thread protects nothing. I can register, read, change my e-mail address to something invalid, and go on a harassment spree and you'll never know who it was.
What is this thing response whatever that was handled backchannel? Is it the Anathema leaving thing?
I don't think having a closed thread is going to do much except create a false sense of security. I think we need to explore options of having some things that need security handled back channel and not have people getting angry about it.
I don't get angry, I get curious!
There was some backchannel crafting of emails/responses to Anathema, but I think the one we're talking about is when two unregistered lurkers wrote the admins to complain that a poster was talking trash about them and that they would try to seek a legal remedy.
Was that confirmed?
No. I'm just guessing. Good point.
Barn door, horse, at this point.
While it would be nice to have a user-only channel, I don't see it as practical, and agree with the "false sense of security" people.
