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.

Laura, I'm pretty sure I shared your opinion.

But I just realised that if I were a) not reading with admin eyes and b) catching up on all this kerfuffle at once, I'd hit the end and just go "So -- what happened?"

And I wouldn't be surprised if the next skimmer did, and the next, and the next ...

I was against banings being posted in Press, but I am not coming up with a good way to articulate my reason why.

How about, people read press to find out what's happening in Buffista lives, whether good news, bad news or any other type of news. A banned individual's name shouldn't even be associated with that thread much less be in it. In Hebrew there's an expression - "let his/her name be erased and forgotten".

Just a thought -- we should have an Official Announcement in the Sunnydale Press thread that Zoe has been banned. Though I don't suppose there are any currently active Buffistas (currently active in the past two days, anyway) who are unaware of her disruptive behavior, people might come back from vacation or gafiation and wonder what happened.

I disagree, Laura. I think the advantage of posting in Press is that it's a discussion-free thread, and therefore very low traffic. We've had several x-post filled repeats of "is she banned" "yes, she's banned" in here this morning, and it certainly isn't because people don't care to read. The traffic in here gets high when there's an uproar going on, and it's way too easy to miss an announcement.

By all means, let's make it as coolly-worded as possible, and remind people that it can't be discussed there. But I do think we should put the news there. It's where we put news.

I would like to see postings about bannings in press. The only reason I knew something went down was because of rumblings in LJ, and I had to come here to figure out exactly what.

How about: "Due to repeated violations of site ettiquette, the user Zoe Ann has been banned from the site. For procedural details, see the ettiquette page and the Bureaucracy thread."

I'm going to lunch.

Okay I just realized I confused Press with Beep me. But the sentiment is still the same. Let's not publicize her name for any reason.