it might be a clearly-identified resource for members of the community

I'm not getting what resource it would provide, though.

I think one step towards a solution is to understand the nature of the problem:

1) We want a place to discuss trolls without trolls seeing it.
2) The place must be open to all registered users.
3) It is impossible to prevent trolls from becoming registered users.

These three givens are entirely mutually exclusive.

Unless we do something about 3 - i.e. new screening methods, or we change the requirements of 2 and allow a backchannel forum that not all registered users can access, we won't have a "safe haven" for these discussions.

Also, Wolfram, I'm not clear that we want your 1), or rather that we need anything more than the administration mailing list to handle it.

Jon, I'm stating the apparent reasons behind the initial proposal:

Proposal: That the community, if it is practical to code, allow individual threads to be designated, "Accessible only to members of the community," and restrict access to those threads only to registered users. Any such threads to be so designated shall be determined by separate proposal and vote. If the proposal passes, the coding of this feature shall be added to the features request list.

And if the admins are going to be available to assist where there are problems of this nature I think it ought to be more publicized.

I'm stating the apparent reasons behind the initial proposal:

Yeah, but the response to it has been pretty overwhelmingly negative. I'm also inclined to say that I'm not sure we seem to want such a place.

I'm stating the apparent reasons behind the initial proposal

OK. It wasn't clear to me that you were simply trying to restate the proposal without giving an opinion.

OK. It wasn't clear to me that you were simply trying to restate the proposal without giving an opinion.

Not so much. I was trying to restate the problem, and why a solution under the current conditions is impossible. The proposal speaks for itself, and my opinion is that we need to resort to either A) backchannel or B) new screening methods.

I noticed there's a lot of resistance to any sort of backchannel as being unBuffistaish, so I'm pointing out that I don't see a lot of other options.

I'm opposed to the proposal as it's written, for the same reasons mentioned here repeatedly: it will not do what it is supposed to do.

I am in favor of the Stompies having a "closed session" thread for their use & readability only, for when discussion of this sort of thing becomes necessary. People can still use the email function to bring their issues to light for the Stompies. I also think that there should be an attorney in the Stompy Circle, and that the disclaimer discussed above is necessary.

That's my $0.02. I don't really know the particulars of this situation, though.

(Although I'm beginning to think it might be good to have a lawyer as a Stompy, if we don't already. Just for a certain comfort-level. And no, I'm not volunteering to be that individual since I'm not an active bar member at this time. Still, something to consider.)

Not an attorney, but I'm wondering if acting in a semi-official capacity like this, rather than just offering opinions when asked, might be an uncomfortable place to be. I don't see us ever actually getting involved in legal troubles, but would the person acting as our stompy-lawyer be looking at some risk here?

I was trying to restate the problem, and why a solution under the current conditions is impossible.

I agree. But, in addition, it's not clear to me that "We want a place to discuss trolls without trolls seeing it", except to do things like craft emails. I think that's best left to admins working backchannel.