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

I agree.

{{{Wolfram}}} If I may interject, I kind of had a quicker awakening than you did, I think, when I came in posting like I owned the place at the very beginning. Reality is, if I were Rio when I did that, it would have been cool and wonderful and awesome, but I wasn't. It wasn't. After being hurt and unhappy about it, I tried to look at it from everyone else's perspective. Just because I'd been all stalking and lurkery and liked everyone and I am, of course, a wonderful, kind, adorable and sexy person whom everyone should know and love, doesn't mean anyone else saw me that way (no, they didn't. I don't understand it still).

Since Firefly died, I don't think I've seen you post anywhere but here, asking why things are the way they are, sounding like, whether you intend it or not, as if you want to make everything uniform -- hyperbole, forgive, please --maybe better to say as if good enough isn't good enough, instead of building relationships outside this thread. Maybe you've been posting elsewhere and I haven't seen it. If so, my apologies, but I think the point still stands. I don't think a lot of people have seen it, seen you, outside this thread.

I want to see you in another thread. I want to know how you feel about the fact that your wife will be having a little wolfie in June, and whether or not you're prepared to name him Buffistino Monkeypants Wolfram. I want to know if you like practicing law and what kind you practice and whether or not you give change to bums on the street. I want to get to know you outside of preferential voting or revisiting old issues.

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.

Scrappy, what you are describing is not the way I post, but how you interpret my posts because I never said those words you quoted. If you read my posts from back then you'll see that I didn't accept what people said as the "end-all, be-all" because there were other people who said otherwise and the discussion was open. In the future, I'll pay more attention to who is saying that they disagree.

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.

Me neither. I just understand it better.

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

I thought it was a place where everyone could say whatever they wanted as long as they did it with respect and civility.

I believe Wolfram is coming at this from a utopian ideal of equal voices for all, regardless of community capital for good or ill.

Naive right? But that's past tense, I get it now.

...someone who hasn't been around for too long and therefore doesn't know as much of the history and culture of the community keeps arguing that it should be done.

Yeah, I could see how that can be damn annoying. Now I'm starting to piss myself off.

In all seriousness, I'm glad that we're having this discussion. And I hope that other newbies learn from my mistakes, because I have been talking out of turn. And to paraphrase what Kat (I think) said, in this thread it's easier to lose social capital than to gain it.

cereal: put me in the post to press corner.

I thought it was a place where everyone could say whatever they wanted as long as they did it with respect and civility.

It's that too. Nobody's told you to stop posting. Not once.

I thought it was a place where everyone could say whatever they wanted as long as they did it with respect and civility.

To a large degree, it is that kind of place. The difference is in how other people react, no? I think everyone's had the experience of having a brilliant idea that no one else thinks is brilliant, and that's just kind of the way it goes. (Seriously, for a good time, ask Lyra Jane about the first time she proposed a Natter thread.) I just think you've had that experience more often than most people, and I can see where it would drag a person down.

Wolfram, I want to tell you What Deena Said. I think you're a good guy. I think you're smart and articulate and can be witty. I want to know you better. When I know you better I'll be able to hear the wry grin in your typeface, or the concern in a throwaway comment.

I want to see you in another thread. I want to know how you feel about the fact that your wife will be having a little wolfie in June, and whether or not you're prepared to name him Buffistino Monkeypants Wolfram. I want to know if you like practicing law and what kind you practice and whether or not you give change to bums on the street. I want to get to know you outside of preferential voting or revisiting old issues.

Deena, I swear you've made me tear up. Truth is I've posted in Natter, Angel, Buffy, Smallville and others and even when I don't get a chance to post, I read almost everything. I've posted more than I should be, but I haven't gotten that personal. I guess I've Bureaucracied too much for my own good (social capital-wise).

Since you asked, it just so happens my oldest is already named Monkeypants, so that's out. And I'll save more of the natter for some other thread like, ummmm, Natter. ;)

I want to know how you feel about the fact that your wife will be having a little wolfie in June, and whether or not you're prepared to name him Buffistino Monkeypants Wolfram. I want to know if you like practicing law and what kind you practice and whether or not you give change to bums on the street.

Hey, this is discrimination against the Natter-challenged! (Seriously, I've seen him a lot in the Angel threads.)

I think the problem (such as there is, and I've never had one personally with anything Wolf has posted) isn't so much the suggestions -- plenty of people suggest plenty of things, and usually it doesn't really matter. I think the difference is that Wolfram tries to "sell" his ideas as the One True Way, and that gets people's dander up -- not because his ideas are bad ones, but because people may feel a decision on the issue has already been made and not really want to discuss it further, let alone argue the point logically. Also, I think he tends to push for more change than a lot of people are comfortable with, especially those of you who really envisioned the place from scratch while we were at WX.

This is the thing, wolf -- I know there are policies here I would like to change, and if the time seems right, I mention them. But I am one person, and, unless I'm riding a serious zeitgeist, I am Not Gonna Get My Way. It doesn't matter how cute I am, or how well I argue my logical point -- I just end up looking like a stampy-footing fool. The trick is insinuating your idea into the flow of the place, so people start treating it as an idea that could work, not just Bad!Scary!Change.

I'm thinking about Press. You know, in some ways I'd like to strike the banned person from the book of the Buffistas, and never speak of that person again. But in other ways, I think it's worthwhile to announce a momentous event, to make sure everyone's aware of it, to put it down as a Thing That Happened, and is resolved, and is ready to become history.

And then we signify that the matter is closed, and those who want to may refuse ever to speak that name again.