But why are you seeking her out on her home turf and then getting offended by what she's saying there?

Monique, she posted a link to her comments about Cindy, Paul and others in one of her PF posts (and posted most of the same comments in PF, so I'm not sure why the link was there). Nobody sought out anything.

Carried over from lightbulbs:

But we're not saying that you can't post nasty things in your Livejournal about other Buffistas, just that if you do, and you link directly to it, that's equivalent to posting the comments themselves here.

Right, but what I'm getting at is if someone doesn't directly link to the specific post as part of the discussion, but has posted the link before, either in a profile or as part of another discussion. I guess I don't want to see someone get a warning for something they thought of as private venting, even if it isn't truly private.

I also share bc's concern about trying to regulate sandboxes that aren't ours.

I think unless the person who wrote it links to it in-thread, anything said off-board is backchannel, and not subject to our etiquette rules.

(I also think that actual physical threats -- actual meaning not hyperbole like "Zoe makes me so mad I want to rip her head off and feed it to to my cat" -- should be an exception to this. If someone fears for their safety because of something another Buffista has emailed or posted about them, that should be addressed.)

But we're not saying that you can't post nasty things in your Livejournal about other Buffistas, just that if you do, and you link directly to it, that's equivalent to posting the comments themselves here.

I don't know that I agree with this. Heck, Jessica, you've listed your blog's URL just generally. After a kerfuffle about grammar, comments about me showed up in your blog. I went to read it even though you didn't link to it here. I already knew the link and I thought I might be there because you and I were both hot under the collar that day. I assumed you did that to vent with the assumption that you didn't really expect me to read it. I also didn't think that I would have a right to get all up in arms over it and so never brought it up.

I'm thinking if backchannel is really backchannel we don't use it enforce our CS. Even if someone wants us to see it, we can't get upset about.

Or What Monique Said.

Yeah. Physical threats are different. I didn't see physical threats in what Zoe said, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I'm sorry that she made Cindy et al worried and I totally relate to their feelings of unease.

So, it's been decided. She's banned now, yes? I want to be sure it is clearly stated that It Is So.

Kat, that's why I said in-thread, as part of the discussion. (Which, now I see, I didn't say in the post you quoted, but it was what I meant, so I'm clarifying now.) Like how Plei sometimes links to her LJ ep analyses -- she clearly means them to be part of the discussion about the show. Zoe's link in PF was clearly meant to be part of her tantrum-throwing about us.

Ah. The in-thread piece makes sense.

But I think I'm more pissed aboout the tantrum throwing she actually did in thread at the PF. If that makes sense. Ban her for that, not what is said on her site.

Or ban her because she's not a good community member.

She is banned, right?

Speaking quite only for myself, Wolfram, your civil manner to me feels dismissive of what came before. I'm not speaking to your intent, since you say that's not so, but it just feels "Okay. I'm here now. Let's fix things."

ita, I took a couple of unpopular stances regarding voting, thread proliferation, and previous consensuses (sp?), and I thought those opinions were welcomed even if not agreed with. I don't think the board is broken. I'm not big in fandom, but of the few sites I've been to, this is the most amazingly run site I've ever seen. And a ton of the credit goes to you.

I frequently take issue with your stances in this thread because you seem to operate under the belief that nothing that happened on this board before you showed up is relevant. And I find it completely offensive to those people who have been here for years, myself included.

No, I wanted old consensuses to be re-voted on. It was an opinion. The issue never made it into Lightbulb, which bothers me a little, but I'm not going to bring it up again. And other than saying I really don't feel that everything that's happened before me is irrelevant and once again I never intended to offend, I have nothing to add. I'm sorry you feel this way.

Wolfram, my issue with the things you say has nothing to do with how long you've been posting. If some "old-timer" or "long-term poster" or "true Buffista" (or any of those other terms I hate) started trying to change the way we do everything, my hackles would be ruffled too.

Where did I come across as trying to change "everything"? Apparently I've given lots of people that impression. I don't want to change anything. The board really is amazing as it is. I was just trying to help with the tweaking. But I'll stop.

Actually, I think that Wolfram has always been one of the most composed and level-headed (when it comes to tone) posters that I have read.

Thank you.

Wolfram tends to talk about procedure in a very sanitized way that seems to deny the very messy Buffista way of dealing with issues, each other, and the board itself.

That's true. I'm an attorney, we're programmed that way.

Wolfram's feeling that all Buffistas are created equal under da law is certainly not my feeling. Wolfram is not my equal, no one is. We're individuals, here. We should be treated fairly. Equality squares the piss out of me.

I don't think we're all equal. When I asked for equal treatment what I meant was fair treatment. And fair treatment to me means the rules apply equally to everyone, even unequal individuals. But this is just simian-antics, methinks.

Yes, she's banned. DX said so, because she violated ettiquette after her suspension.

I'd link the post, but occasionally I'm lazy and unhelpful.