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

Regardless of anything she said on her own own site, her postings on PF are sufficient. Regardless of the incoherence of some of the stuff over there, she attacks Julie. She's banned.

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.

You're right. I'm sure it's not everything. I think it maybe tends to be hot-button issues, that we've sweated blood over, and then to have you seemingly blithely dismiss the results of our sweating really hurts and frustrates, you know?

There were endless debates on how the board should be run when we were back at WX. Those of us who were around then set up the structure, the wording of the ettiquette pages, the how-to, the thread names, the slugs, the headers. It was a damn lot of work, and I can say that as one who did very little of it. And the board's been around six months, and it seems that we're almost constantly revisiting those issues.

I'm not saying it's entirely rational. But it's still a valid feeling.

It seems that the Buffistas have a politics thread at long last.

Actually, we have a poltics thread.

Enormous hugs and hands in new places to Julie, Cindy, Paul and whomever else she slagged.

That would be me, Consuela, Matt and Jim, though I seem to have escaped the especially vitriolic post. I think I was being used more as a general example. It is still a little bit unnerving, however.

Where did the decision stand on posting notification of banning in Press?

Okay, to riff off a Kat example, Wolfram, if I give everyone here a Cheeseburger at the F2F because they're feeling hungry, I've treated everyone equally, but is that fair? Is it fair to the vegans and lactose intolerant?

It isn't fair. The law is seldom applied equally to all. There is an attempt to apply the law fairly. A minor doesnt get the same sentence as an adult. The mentally ill are sentenced differently, and often, a person's prior history are taken into consideration. Two people can commit murder, and one may get two years in jail, another life.

Also, I don't think you're thinking like a lawyer, I think you're thinking like a mathematician, where there is only one answer to the equation.

What you seem to want is TWOP. That's been discussed, and most everyone who has weighed in has said that they don't want a TWoP environment.

Where did the decision stand on posting notification of banning in Press?

There wasn't one. I'm in favor of it, for reasons I've mentioned before. (Simply, it makes it Very Official, and it lets people know what's gone down without having to read through this thread.)

You're right. I'm sure it's not everything. I think it maybe tends to be hot-button issues, that we've sweated blood over, and then to have you seemingly blithely dismiss the results of our sweating really hurts and frustrates, you know?

I'm not saying it's entirely rational. But it's still a valid feeling.

Nobody's feelings are invalid. Even mine. I may not come across as a passionate poster, but when I'm accused of blithely dismissing other people's hard work, it hurts me too. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your candor, but I don't know how to get across that I just don't feel the way people seem to think I do about this board, or about the efforts that have gone into it.

To sum up what I think since we've moved this topic over here:

If someone posts a link in a thread or makes a comment like, "I'm going to my LJ right now to bitch about how you are all fuckos," okay. That we can comment on because it happened/was referenced within the community.

But if someone merely has the link to their LJ in their profile or you know it because they once mentioned it was their username and you go to the LJ and see them talking about how we're all fuckos, it's not a community issue. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to email them or leave a comment in their LJ about it. It just means that there aren't going to be 1500 posts in Bureaucracy about it.

Threats are a separate and more serious issue.

I was against banings being posted in Press, but I am not coming up with a good way to articulate my reason why. Something along the lines of - if it is a concern to a member they are going to find out it happened. It just seems enough to me to cover it in Bureaucracy. Like one place to keep the unpleasantness. I had a good reason at one point, but I forgot what it was.

Allyson, I think you are saying that who a person is should be a factor in judging the contents of their posts. I agree with you. In thispost I list other factors that should also be considered. Nobody should get a "freebie", but you're right, the level of punishment does differ.

Also, I don't think you're thinking like a lawyer, I think you're thinking like a mathematician, where there is only one answer to the equation.

No. I express my opinion in a sanitized way, because I'm trained to look at a problem from different sides and write in both passionate and impassionate styles. Sometimes there's the One True Answer, sometimes there are multiple answers, and sometimes there's no answer at all. And I've never been accused of being mathy before. I kind of like it.