I agree with Sophia--I wouldn't have known it was appropriate to email the Stompies if I were being faced with some type of harassment I didn't feel comfortable raising in Bureaucracy.

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.

And I don't think you need to be an active member of a bar to fill this position. Just preface any quasi-legal opinions with "not a lawyer" disclaimers, and consult with some of us if necessary.

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.

See Sophia's point b. I had no problem that the whole Anathema thing happened back channel. But there was a lot of negative response after people found out about it. I didn't bring the Z issue to them back channel, specifically because of the response to the Anathema resignation (or whatever). The only thing that seemed to put out the fires on the Anathema issue, is that he volunteered to leave. In the Z case, because she was using a Buffista Forum (PF) to link to comments about Buffistas, I wanted her suspension to turn into a ban.

Now - I understand people are saying I could have emailed the stompies and they could have posted about it, saying, "It comes to our attention that Z is using Buffista threads at PF, even though she's suspended. Furthermore she's using PF to link to strange and vaguely threatening comments about Buffistas. What does the community want to do about this?"

Fine. That works for me in as far as it goes. Then what happens? Who is going to speak up and tell the stompies that the community wants troll Z banned, rather than suspended. Who is going to speak up when they realize that doing so is likely to attract negative attention from the only suspended and not yet banned poster?

I can tell you who is not going to speak up.

I completely inappropriately emailed an admin directly, to their personal profile address, but there is the "E-mail Admins" link in the left sidebar. Should we advertise that and promote its use in situations such as the ones under discussion? Or would the admins prefer a personal note?

Personally? I'm all for quick and clean, no clutter. But if the membership wants it prettier and more formal, I can get behind that too.

I just have an icky haven't brushed lately feeling about locking an existing thread (other than 'bulbs). It's not going to do what people want it to do, and making it so may add to the general discomfort. My take, anyway.

there is the "E-mail Admins" link in the left sidebar. Should we advertise that and promote its use in situations such as the ones under discussion?

To tell you the truth, that's what I always assumed that link was for. And I'm really pretty stunned to see that people don't feel they can use it, but maybe that means that some kind of clarification is needed.

I completely inappropriately emailed an admin directly, to their personal profile address, but there is the "E-mail Admins" link in the left sidebar. Should we advertise that and promote its use in situations such as the ones under discussion? Or would the admins prefer a personal note?

The stompies are people too. And sometimes a member might feel more comfortable emailing an issue to one stompie rather than to the entire stompie listserv. Maybe he/she doesn't want to bring an issue to all the stompies. Maybe a stompie is friends with the person being complained of, or maybe a stompie (in an extremely unlikely case) is the one being complained of.

Is it really inappropriate to email a stompie directly?

And yada yada numbah.

That was the way I felt about it at the time--somebody I knew, who ought to know about the situation, rather than go through the admin link.

But our admins have said they don't want the responsibility of being judge and jury, though when called upon by necessity, they've been the righteous fist of harmony for us--the membership. And they get huge props for that.

But I think ultimately it's up to the admins whether and how they want to be contacted about emergency situations.

It's another thing how--and if--the membership at large wants to, needs to, or should discuss an ongoing situation or a problem poster.

But our admins have said they don't want the responsibility of being judge and jury, though when called upon by necessity, they've been the righteous fist of harmony for us--the membership. And they get huge props for that.

Absolutely. But as harmonizers they should be available on an individual level as well as on a group level, in my opinion. I'm not trying to pile on the responsiblity, but I think knowing you can approach a stompie directly would facilitate more communication on troubling issues, and less hurt feelings and board-straining kerfuffles.

To tell you the truth, that's what I always assumed that link was for. And I'm really pretty stunned to see that people don't feel they can use it, but maybe that means that some kind of clarification is needed.

I had to, but when I read the reaction to Anathema situation I began to feel it was innappropriate. I suggested it to someone uncomfortable with the Zoe situation, but remember being told by a that the person should really bring it up in Bureablahblah. And finally, during the vote regarding the warning procedure, it was the thought seemed to be that if you didn't feel comfortable a) dealing with the situation in-thread or b) bringing it to bureacracy then you couldn't ask for an official warning.

Perhaps the distinction is that the stompies should be e-mailed for advice or with problems that don't need official steps. The stompies seem so adamant that they do not want to moderate at all that sometimes I even feel that is too much.