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.

I am in favor of the Stompies having a "closed session" thread for their use

We already have a listserv.

Jon: works for me. I just want to make sure that y'all have the ability to talk amongst yourselves.

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.

I thought that the lurking troll free zone was the whole point of the proposal, but maybe there were other reasons too.

And the existing listserv sounds like it does the trick. Not a stompie so I guess it's up to the stompies to confirm that. But if the stompies wanted a thread that they could open up to specific users as necessary I wouldn't oppose that either. I would just suggest it not be listed and linked from the homepage.

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

Good point, although I don't think I'm suggesting a lawyer as a Stompy would be the Buffista General Counsel or anything. It's more like having someone around who is willing to be on call to talk about those sorts of quasi-legal issues, without actually representing the board as such.

I also think having a clearly-placed disclaimer regarding the content of individual posts is a good idea.

ita, with regards to the email address, I guess I was just riffing off Allyson's discussion of the security email address they had at the Bronze.