'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Typo, what do you mean by "ignore the rules in case of an emergancy"?
Askye, my take on it is that the stompies are to exercise common sense when they come across behavior that we didn't take into consideration when the rules and procedures were drawn up. I don't have a problem with that.
Typo, you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're saying the stompies will be flexible enough not to abuse their new power. On the other hand, you're saying that in a very unlikely future event, we NEED a rule, because, I'm presuming, stompies can't be flexible in the future? This statement:
But this is a posting board not a government. We really can go on the basis that the stompies are not likely to abuse it (and indeed are much more likely to be reluctant to use it when they should) and if they ever do abuse it, well there are other boards.
Could just as well be applied against your argument that we need an ex ante rule.
As I understand the situation, mieskie was suspended, then banned when he continued to post as mmieskie, Michael, etc. When he returned as Schmoker/Ananthema, his identity was discovered and he chose to leave quietly for violating his banned status.
And I also do not think we will have to worry about a troll gang. A troll gang will have to learn our rules, and I think if they are coming here for the specific purpose of being a troll gang, they will themselves be warned/suspended/banned before it becomes an issue.
I find the Stompy clarification good for purposes of clarification and statement on record if needed.
Typo dropped his objections. Can we please move on?
I second Jon B's emotion.
I thought that votes were supposed to end debate...
Shawn, understood.
If no one else can see the possibility that we might someday want someone back after a ban, I'll drop this. I admit it is unlikely, given how unwilling we've been to even warn anyone.
I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I just wanted to make sure I understood what he was saying. I probably should have emailed him privately about it, I'm sorry.
If no one else can see the possibility that we might someday want someone back after a ban, I'll drop this.
I just think you're putting the cart before the horse. I understand the sentiment that sometimes you need a procedure in place ahead of time, to deal with sticky situations when they arise. I don't think that this is one of those times. If someone is banned and later there's a desire to unban, we can deal with it then.
And making people like Burrell who want no change BE disenfranchised.
Just for clarification, I never said I am accross the board against change. I said that on those issues where I don?t want change, I vote ?No.? I have actually voted ?Yes? on most of the issues raised for a vote.
Sorry for the misrepresentation, Burrell.