It's Zoe Ann Finch's ISP.
Murk: But you're a God! The Sacred Glorificus! Glory: I'm a God in exile. Far from the Hellfires of Home and sharing my body with an enemy that stabs my boys in their fleshy little stomachs!
'Dirty Girls'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
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
§ ita § - May 05, 2003 7:46:54 am PDT #1326 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Jesse - May 05, 2003 7:49:01 am PDT #1327 of 10005
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Eek! Please to stomp?
Sue - May 05, 2003 7:51:52 am PDT #1328 of 10005
hip deep in pie
Yes, just stomp.
§ ita § - May 05, 2003 7:58:49 am PDT #1329 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Done.
edit: I sent off an official request for clarification, and the reply came from her real name.
Jesse - May 05, 2003 8:12:02 am PDT #1330 of 10005
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Thanks, ita. (Glad that was angst-free, anyway....)
Nutty - May 05, 2003 8:17:43 am PDT #1331 of 10005
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
Huh. I was just coming in to panic about that. My panic thunder is stolen.
Talk about people unclear on the concept.
Wolfram - May 05, 2003 8:47:41 am PDT #1332 of 10005
Visilurking
Well, the reason we were thinking about voting on it was because of the War thread. Someone was supposed to make a list of all the decisions that would be affected, but I agree it can stay "on hold" for a while...
We were first supposed to vote on whether "old decided issues" were subject to the new rules, and if the people voted yes, then the proposed War thread was next in the queue. We were waiting on someone, I think Anne, to finish a list of "old decided issues" so people know what the ramifications of the first vote would be. I'd still very much like to see this vote happen, but I've been enjoying the peace and harmony on this thread too much to bring it up.
Nilly - May 05, 2003 10:02:08 am PDT #1333 of 10005
Swouncing
Dragged from BBaBB to where it seems to belong: Cindy "Buffistas Building a Better Board" May 5, 2003 10:36:42 am EDT:
Is there any way to restrict the ability to read the Bureaucracy thread to members only?
Please discuss.
[Edit: I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes with this. I'm definitely sorry if I am]
DXMachina - May 05, 2003 10:07:39 am PDT #1334 of 10005
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Your wish is my command, Nilly.
Proposal:That the community, if it is practical to code, allow individual threads to be designated, "Accessible only to members of the community," and restrict access to those threads only to registered users. Any such threads to be so designated shall be determined by separate proposal and vote. If the proposal passes, the coding of this feature shall be added to the features request list.
Background: We have had a couple of situations where unregistered lurkers have caused some problems for members of the community. One felt it necessary to change her ID after one of her posts was quoted elsewhere by a lurker, identifying her as the person who runs a specific web site. Another was stalked by two people, who then made threats to the admins regarding her posts, and the posts of her friends on the board, which ultimately forced her to leave the board. Earlier today, Zoe violated her banning. She has also begun to send e-mails to members of the community, which has caused some concern. I would like to be able to discuss situations like these without having to worry about who is watching over my shoulder.
When I was first thinking this, I had in mind that possibly two threads would wind up being protected, Bureaucracy and Bitches. Bureaucracy for the reasons noted above, and Bitches because members occasionally post there about very personal issues. Other folk may think of others. Regardless, we would vote before changing any of them.
I know we pride ourselves as an open board, but I don't see a problem with the proposal on that score. All I am proposing is that if someone wants to read a restricted thread, they join the community. This is not a great hardship unless one is banned. This is not meant to be similar to the forums at WX that require one be vetted and given a join code, or asking to be put on a friends list at LJ. We don't restrict membership.
§ ita § - May 05, 2003 10:08:37 am PDT #1335 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I don't like the idea much, myself.
AFAICT, it's effectiveness is to prevent banned posters from reading B'cy, right? It has no other teeth, right?
What's the point?
edit: xpost