Spike ,'Potential'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
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.
I thought that the lurking troll free zone was the whole point of the proposal
We're talking around each other. I don't agree with the proposal is all I was saying.
We're talking around each other. I don't agree with the proposal is all I was saying.
Oh, me neither.
gets off merry go round
Now why's the ground spinning?
OK-- the thing I need cleared up in my head is whether we can e-mail stompies with problems. I thought that we could not based on a) they themsleves do not want to be moderators b) the overwhelming negative response when something is handled backchannel and c) the vote we had about dealing with problem posters.
It does sound like I would get a response and action if I emailed the stompies (which is fine, I like it that way). Maybe the issue we're dealing with has nothing to do with closing Bureacracy o non-registrants and more to do with what can be handled back-channel?
I think it depends what the problem is, Sophia. And maybe that should be stated somewhere. What is within the Stompies' Scope of Work, so to speak.
I'm not sure where to do it, but I wish to nominate 'Suela for Stompy status, provided that she's willing to be a Stompy.