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.
Wolfram, I've been reading the exchange that is going and I am having a hard time putting my finger on exactly what I want to say, so I'm going to bumble along.
On a non-techonological level, this space is entirely built on the relationships we have with each other. Those of us who have been here a bit have spent a lot of time cultivating those relationships. We've gained a certain amount of social capital because we've spent time on those relationships.
We use our social capital to Make Friends and Influence Decisions, but also lose some when we start fights. I expended some social capital when i was pissed about preferential voting and I needed to spend sometime repairing relationships.
I can use my social capital to gently chide my friends. For example, I was upset about Allyson's use of "subhuman" and I let her know it. And I'm assuming it didn't piss her off too much because we're still friends.
When someone who doesn't have that same relationship history comes in and questions how things are done, it's unsettling and upsetting. Those relationships aren't developed enough to draw on the social capital, because one doesn't have enough in the bank yet. Nor does one have the same number and the same type of advocates.
In a group run on relationships, the flip side to social currency is advocates. When people advocate for me, they go to bat for me. Time put in can mean many advocates, (or if you're a phenomenal ass as I am occasionally, many enemies). how you use your advocacy is also effects your social currency. If I'm always advocating for the person that everyone else has given up on, then I can expect the next time I do it, that it will be viewed with less validity.
Because we run on those relationships, things aren't always transparently fair. (Plus, since I work with middle school kids, fair is a horrible hot button word for me). Moreover, I'm not sure we always aim for fair.
Blah blah blah.
Still thinking about this and still unclear.
When you've set off my trigger, it's because my sense is that you don't yet know the landscape of why we do things and what it means and how much thought we have put into these things. And, for me, how much social capital I had to expend in order to try to get things that way.
If you want us to change, then build those relationships (Bureaucracy fwiw tends to be the thread where people lose capital and not gain it).
Also, thread speed in here aside, most people aren't for more governance and certainly are for much less change. People who are perceived as prochange will have a hard time at it. (Pure speculation on my part)
