'Out Of Gas'
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
FWIW, Amych, I don't have any problem with adding to the official language that we ditch the rules in case of emergency if that will make people happy.
Edited to make sense.
Also, I think Nutty asked for volunteers, so if she still needs 'em, I'm willing. Just point me in the right direction.
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.
I went back to B'cy 1, to see if this was true and it was. It's interesting to note that the whole mmmieskie/Michael business was his attempt to respond to the allegations in the B'cy thread which he hadn't been previously invited to. This is in contrast to the recent Zoe situation where we bent over backwards for days trying to get her to respond in the B'cy thread to no avail.
Personally I think we should have given mieskie more of an opportunity to respond, and less of an opportunity to Zoe. But the board is definitely learning from the past which is a very positive thing.
But the board is definitely learning from the past which is a very positive thing.
Yes. This. I think as long as we go along with that in mind, we'll come out okay (if occasionally with some local bruising).
t shin-kicking wolfram
t whistling innocently
Wolfram--just wanted to mention that here was a post of yours in B'cy and that I was HEARTILY IN AGREEMENT! You go, Dude!
Ouch!
Mom, Deena's kicking me!
I guess we're all learning from our past. :)
Hi, Wolfram. Good to see you back.
It's interesting to note that the whole mmmieskie/Michael business was his attempt to respond to the allegations in the B'cy thread which he hadn't been previously invited to. This is in contrast to the recent Zoe situation where we bent over backwards for days trying to get her to respond in the B'cy thread to no avail.
That is interesting, and helps explain why the mmmieskie/Michael posts were so pissed off (I didn't watch Firefly, so the Bureaucracy kerfuffle was really the first I heard of him.). I'm glad we've codified a procedure that will prevent something like that in the future.
I know I was against bending over backward to invite mieskie to bureaucracy-- I don't buy that he wouldn't have been as pissy about the discussion if we had. (and schmoker, who knew full well this thread existed, was a jerk here too.) Is it true that no one informed him? I thought someone had.
I actually believe he said he was informed backchannel, through e-mail or somesuch. He was pissy, because, IMO, he was trying to put everyone on the defensive so that his accusers would feel guilty and drop it.
I don't know what you're talking about, Wolfie. I'm just over here in the corner whistling.
And, whatever I think about that situation, I do think it's a good idea to invite someone who offends into bureacracy to discuss things.