It wasn't really a serious suggestion anyway.

Yeah, I was kidding. My previous vote's the vote that counts.

eta: Allyson--note your Satanic numbersluttage above!

I probably got snottier than was necessary. I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.

Once, again I agree with Allyson, we need to be clearer about how we see the board and ourselves so that when we start talking about community standards violations that doesn't become some abstract totally subjective idea. It's still somewhat objective but at least when people first come here they have a better idea of our expectations.

we need to be clearer about how we see the board and ourselves so that when we start talking about community standards violations that doesn't become some abstract totally subjective idea

A potential problem I see with this is trying to find a Lowest Common Denominator of Offense. I know many things have come through that ignited firestorms that barely impacted on my radar. I suppose the complaint threshold number is the best way to determine overall level of annoyance.

Some people see this board as a place to escape an unfriendly world and hang out with like minds that won't upset them. Some see it as a place to tell naughty jokes, talk about shows and pass around stories (who, me?). Sanctuaries have different rules than nightclubs do. Are we a sanctuary or a coffee shop/nightclub/hangout?

I like Allyson's idea of adding those paragraphs at the end of the simple document. And I'd like to know who'd be responsible for deciding that the default link on the etiquette info should be changed.

Are we a sanctuary or a coffee shop/nightclub/hangout?

Differs from person to person. At Salon and WXing, this was a sanctuary, for me. And it's all about me, despite what Victor says. He's so delusional.

And sanctuary wasn't about agreeing with "like minds who wouldn't upset me," it was about being challenged by smart minds who wouldn't choke on thier own stupidity. (BUFFY AND ANGLE 4EVAH!) (KILL THE RAGHEADS!)

Saw boards degenerate due to the "kumbayah, i was bullied when i was wee so i need to accept everyone and let's hold hands and sing joy to the world!" contingency.

Has to be standards, and no one seems to want to standardize.

Then again, I'm an elitist prick. Has to be a middle ground between me and kumbayaya.

I'm not at all sure that trying to produce a more codified definition of What Buffistas Are will be all that helpful - because one can always come up with exceptions to rules, and then there's a 'But so-and-so did something similar and you didn't rag on them' thing. So much of it is context-related.

For my part, I don't think breaking an official rule is the point, when it comes to violations of etiquette; I think (although this may just be my interpretation) that if X many people feel really uncomfortable with whatever thing has been said or done, then that needs to be addressed, regardless of whether somebody had the foresight to include it in a summary of what Buffistaland means.

Not because Buffistina Monkeypants has violated Section 5 Clause 2b of the Buffista Constitution, not because BMP intended/didn't intend to be a jerk, but simply because X many people feel uncomfortable. The more formal we make the constitution, the less flexible it is, because then you get bogged down in whether or not an infraction has occurred/been intended, when the point is that some people are upset and that needs resolving. Bottom line is surely along the lines of play nice and don't be a jerk? Which is difficult to quantify.

Connie-I think different people want different things from the board, I'm not sure we can say it can only be one thing for everyone.

I think Julie's post does a marvellous job of stating without getting granular. It's a principle thing, and applies to coffee shops and sanctuaries alike.

I think Julie's post does a marvellous job of stating without getting granular. It's a principle thing, and applies to coffee shops and sanctuaries alike.

Yep.