I feel you askye. I think that I'm trying to let the stuff about pile-ons and ganging up roll off my back because we're arguing about one poster who has, I feel violated the spirit of the community. I'd rather stick to discussing that.

I am an infrequent poster however I read the posts made by all the other Buffistas daily. I enjoy the comraderie of the Buffistas as it is unlike any other board I have seen. Until lately.

With that said, I would like to request (not demand) that everyone make an attempt to see this situation from every angle. I hate that one person is (seemingly) creating a tear in the fabric that is Buffistas. Hate it.

Everyone is shaped by experiences in their lives. All different experiences. Certain situations will always be more difficult for some than others and therefore will affect us all in a different manner.

The way we deal with these situations may not always be 'perfect' but we're all human. I doubt that any of us could claim to have handled our anger or hurt in the best way during every situation that has come along in our lives.

For me, personally, I will be leaving any and all important decisions up to the long standing members of this community. They built this community and have put the most effort into this site. I feel they have the most to gain or lose. Therefore, I trust them to decide what is best since they were the reason I was originally intrigued by Buffistas in the first place.

Where do I find the previous Bureaucracy thread?

It's showing up in the general thread listing in "Buffistas Home".

Are we discussing the specific situation here or in the Lightbulb thread (where I haven't gotten yet)? Or is the Lightbulb thread being theoretical?

The lightbulb thread is to discuss matters being voted on (see Press for proposal under consideration).

The lightbulb thread is discussing a proposal about how to bring a poster to the point of getting a warning from the community. We are not discussing any individual situation.

So I saw.

Okay. Caught up in I:

I'm not twelve, I'm not peer pressure's bitch.

I never said you were; don't put words in my mouth.

It may have looked like what I was doing, but it wasn't my intent. Frankly, I don't see why it's not an example of peer pressure, or that group rage that makes riots. I also don't remember ever seeing it happening, so I'm at a loss for precisely what you do mean, I suppose. Much like Lyra Jane's "one day there could be a very hostile situation" translating into what I see compromising current optimal procedure -- I'm against it.

Can you take it out of the theory and into the practical?

For me, the practical is that I like to think that when I change my mind, *I* change my mind, due to reflection, or additional information, or the reading of the tea leaves, or whatever. You seem to be implying it's significantly different from that, if I change my mind due to/as part of a pile-on, enough to sway board treatment of a poster.

Honestly, I find my POV swaying, and nudged, as I learn new things about the situation at hand. That's what I call a good thing. I don't understand why it's a bad thing.

Since I think this issue is pretty dead as far as the current proposal, I'm stating here, for the record, that, if no one else wants to draft a proposal regarding time limits for warning effectiveness and the definition of the requirements of moving to suspension after a warning has been issued, I'll do it. I'm a little nervous about it and I will be asking for assistance, but I brought it up, so I'll do it.