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).
'Potential'
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
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.
I understand Trudy and Gar's concern that the rules as now in force give trolls the power to come in and ban folk and I hope that the two of you don't feel not listened to in all this.
I feel listened to. Thanks.
FWIW, my concern is more along the lines of another board dying (or a bunch of people follwoing a link) and a chunk of new people rapidly changing the board to suit themselves. I don't think the scenario is all that fanciful.
(It's also not nearly so picturesque as a Troll Army.)
Like Trudy - I don't feel not listened to at all. In fact Rob's statement more or less addresses my concern - and I think Trudys as well. As long as the stompies reserve the right to exercise common sense in the face of absurd or unfair warnings, I'm OK.