I want bannings to be publicly announced I think it's better if it's out in the open what happened rather than everyone trying to figure out what happend.

It's not like anyone's bragging, the admins make an announcement that Zoe was banned and link to the relevant discussion.

I don't want her forgotten, epsecially since she's made creepy posts attack Buffistas. One of the reasons given for not warning her and letting her stay was that even though it seemed like she might be mentally confused she wasn't trying to be mean, which I think her subsquent posts in other places prove otherwise.

---

She's still posting over on PF, btw.

---

No, Wolfram, it's not just this board. It's how almost all groups work. My relationships with the people inform how I receive the information.

If Jon B advocates a change, say, preferential voting (I think i can joke about this now, Jon. If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll change it), I'll still be virulently against it and, as you may have noticed, I'll post that I'm virulently against it. But it doesn't make me pissed at him nor will it necessarily change my opinion of him in the long run.

But if Randomchick (using it as an example, because it was one of my first names at Utne) whom I don't know comes in and keeps expressing discontent and advocating changes, well, I have nothing else to judge her on, do I?

---

Wolfram--A lot of newer posters, such as Deena or Sean, have made suggestions with no problem. I think that in the case of your posts it's more a case of --"Okay, here's how I think you want to structure the board." And when folks say, "Well, we already structured the board the way we all wanted it and it took a lot of work." Your response is "But I think you should make it be *this* way." When people tell you that your suggestion was considered and rejected, you want to consider it AGAIN. I have been posting for a dog's age (an old decrepit dog at that), and if I started to post a lot about refocussing and restructuring the basic nature of the way we do business here, I feel sure I'd get the same response that you do. "WE already decided that this works best for us."

---

Seeing her recent activity I think nothing will please her more than to get posted in Press. She was obviously trolling for noteriety, and I for one don't want it given to her.

Also I think it's a bad precedent to post bannings in press. Although bannings have not happened too often, someone could stroll through, post a bunch of misspelled flamey offensive crap, and get his/her name in press.

Finally, I'm a big believer in keeping dirty laundry in the laundry room. If someone wants to know who's banned they can ask, or peek into this thread and do a word search or something. I can't see the good of posting bannings in press, considering that all interested parties can easily find out, and all non-interested parties really don't need or even want to know.

But whatever you guys decide.

---

What I'm discovering is that the board is much more like a close knit community with all the advantages and the baggage that comes with it. So theoretically it would be nice if everyone could say whatever they wanted as long as they did it with respect and civility. In actuality, every post is judged based on how long you've been here, what your contributions to the community/fandom have been, how much of an effort you've made to befriend other members etc.

See, you say that as if it's a bad thing. I think our sense of community is one of the strongest things about this board, and I wouldn't change it for the world.

---

Wolfram, change isn't really a popular thing around here. Or at least it's not a popular thing amoung the Buffistas I know well.

Not to drag in the old business, but to show a pattern of behaviour. When Table Talk started going wonky and we had to find someplace else to use (Worldcrossing) there was trepidation about that. It looked different. There were pictures. You couldn't subscribe to invidual threads. And then TT went pay to play and we had to go there. Some people decided they hated WX so much that they never made the move, they went to other free forums. Gradually though, the group got to accept the way of WX.

Natter was not popular when it was first suggested, people were against it.

I'm pretty sure there was some debate over the Firefly Thread.

I know that when we started talking about how the community would change when ME shows got cancelled or ended that wasn't a popular discussion. People didn't want to think about that but also everyone had a different opnion of what the Buffistas were like. Some people are really here for the shows and said that when the shows ended they'd probably leave (this was back on WX), some people saw us more as a community. No one's vision exactly matched.

Wolfram, you've seen the community as it stands now tryign to decide something, it hasn't much changed since the population has grown.

Buffistas.org as a board took a long time to actually come about, or that's the way it feels. I'm not sure when everyone started talking about building our on board but I think it was about the time Salon announced it was going to start charging for Table Talk. The planning started then. We've been live for what? Six months? Not a very long time considering how long it took get through the planning and building stages.

The dust hasn't settled yet, we're still working out the kinks. And while it seems that there's a lot of work still to be done to make it perfect, or it may seem that way to you. Many of us just want to sit back and enjoy the fact that we're here and keep the tinker to the absolute minimum.

---

What I'm discovering is that the board is much more like a close knit

community with all the advantages and the baggage that comes with it. So theoretically it would be nice if everyone could say whatever they wanted as long as they did it with respect and civility. In actuality, every post is judged based on how long you've been here, what your contributions to the community/fandom have been, how much of an effort you've made to befriend other members etc.

Dude. What did you think it was, if not this?

---

Announcing bannings isn't airing dirty laundery. It's letting the community know about the resolution of a situation that effected almost everyone.

---

I believe Wolfram is coming at this from a utopian ideal of equal voices for all, regardless of community capital for good or ill. We have government in this country because communities do not always act for the common good and interpersonal relations are not always the best basis for making decisions. History shows that lots of people who have long relationships with each other do not necessarily have the best interests of other people in mind.

---