But Cindy, I wasn't being condescending, and I'm sorry you're seeing it that way. I can't think of another way to say, "I don't think you're being rational, and think you need to rethink some stuff" without sounding condescending.

People tell me to cool down, a lot, and sometimes I go do that.

I think you need to go rethink some stuff. This issue seems to be about you, what you feel might happen, in an almost paranoid sort of way. This is how I am reading you. It seems panicky for no good reason.

Fact of the matter is nothing on the net is truly private.

Ain't that the truth!

I don't think that a lack of persistence or patience characterised either of them.

True, but if we know anything about the next problem it's that it won't be anything like the last one. Or the one before that. I'm not trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted, I'm looking to preempt new and different problems without asking this community to change its nature. Or its rasion d'etre.

Slowing down the registration process can only make for dedicated community members. And I'm not sure how that's a bad objective.

You're right, they may not be dedicated to the side of good, but there's a process for dealing with them. That doesn't change whether the process is secretive or performed in wide open cyberspace.

And, basically, short of keeping them from interfering with the flow around here, there's nothing that can be done about someone that wants to say bad things about you (me, Cindy, Tim, lezbeans or bitterchicks) out there in cyberdom. So I think we need solutions that work towards keeping them from interfering with the flow around here.

But I don't think going into lockdown mode is the way.

Slowing down the registration process can only make for dedicated community members.

How do you define "dedicated", and is it unilaterally positive? If it's not, and since we know it might shut out people who aren't negative (I don't lurk. I didn't lurk. My registration to post gap is under a day, at every board I've registered for. I consider myself dedicated, but I'd not become a "new" Buffista with those rules. I also like to consider myself not a detriment), I don't see a compelling upside.

Allyson - I'm more angry than paranoid. I'm angry that we bend over backwards to accomodate trolls, need legislation to boot them out when they've been pains in the ass for weeks, not moments, and that we think it would be "unBuffista" to have a private place to discuss troll problems as a group. I am also frustrated that this got bundled in with a request to privatize a discussion thread in the first place, because I can (and do) understand why people are objecting to doing that.

Hayden, I'm blushing. Or something.

As long as you're not rushing to kick my ass, Consuela.

I'm angry that we bend over backwards to accomodate trolls, need legislation to boot them out when they've been pains in the ass for weeks, not moments

I'm with you there.

and that we think it would be "unBuffista" to have a private place to discuss troll problems as a group

It would be unBuffista. Email a stompy, ask a friend to advocate. No. Private. Boards. To. Discuss. Other. People. This is essentially what you are asking for. Use backchannel to vent. But what you seem to want to prevent can only be prevented by unplugging your comp, Cindy. The illusion of privacy won't save you from the monsters, you know?

that we think it would be "unBuffista" to have a private place to discuss troll problems as a group.

I'm not objecting because I think its "unBuffista", whatever the hell that is. I'm objecting because I think it's pointless. There is no such thing as a private place on the net.

If someone is being truly harrassed and concerns about their safety then, by all means, ask a Stompy for some assistance/guidance through backchannel. But other than that, I think all threads should remain open to the public.

How do you define "dedicated",

Interested enough to not walk away if they can't post right.here.and.now.

and is it unilaterally positive?

Nope, and I did acknowledge as much.

If it's not, and since we know it might shut out people who aren't negative... I don't see a compelling upside.

I'm not talking about a week, or even a day. Just not an instantaneous response. Something that gives a "cool off" long enough to have to wait for six or twelve hours for the password to be "activated". This isn't like registering to read news stories (where the impetus for registration is address collection, because the first thing someone can do here is change, hide or remove their address details, right?) This is just recognising that nothing anyone has to say is so important it needs to be immediate.

This is just recognising that nothing anyone has to say is so important it needs to be immediate.

Okay. I understand, and I'm still against it. I'm ticked enough when the conversation surges past where it would have been apropos for me to say what I wanted, that if there were a technical barrier in place too ... I'd walk.

So, selfishly, I'd vote against. I don't think it fixes anything (it wouldn't have deterred any of the issues we've had so far, and I'm not clear on how it would deter anyone persistent enough to be actually annoying).

Interested enough to not walk away if they can't post right.here.and.now.

ME ME ME ME

I would have walked away.

I liked the Well registration, though. It costs an assload of money, and they call you to let you know you've been activated.

No trollies, but the gates are high.

I like Buffistas the way it was at W/X and Salon, and the first few months here, the best.

The change, it has made me bitter. I'm throwing my shoulder against more change, especially the kind of change that looks as if its driving the RV o' Snark over the Cliff of "We Took Ourselves a Wee Bit Too Seriously...OOOOPS!"